reopen_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the state-changing action (reopening) and the return format on success, but does not mention potential failure modes, authorization requirements, or constraints like whether the task must exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and effect in the first sentence and adds inverse relation and return format in the second.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action, inverse, and return format. It is largely complete, though it omits error conditions or edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the task_id parameter. The tool description does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reopens a closed Kanboard task and restores it to the active board. It explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of close_task, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly indicates the tool is for closed tasks by stating 'Reopen a closed (inactive) Kanboard task' and notes it is the inverse of close_task, providing context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives beyond close_task.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.