Reopen task

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 'Does not settle hours' rules out a side effect an agent might otherwise assume, the required Idempotency-Key is called out, and human confirmation is mandated before invocation.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: the state transition, the destination, the side-effect exclusion, the human gate, and the idempotency requirement. The precondition and action are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. For a 3-parameter mutation the description covers precondition, side effects, human approval, and idempotency; it stops short only of describing failure behavior when the task is not in awaitingCustomerConfirm.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (taskId, reason, idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema, including the required markers and 'do not include secrets' on reason. The description only echoes the Idempotency-Key requirement, adding no new parameter meaning, so the 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 states a specific verb (send back / reopen), the resource (a delivery), and the precise precondition state (awaitingCustomerConfirm) plus the destination (account manager). An agent can distinguish this from confirm_task or cancel_task without opening either schema, because the state and direction of the transition are named.

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?

'Ask the human first' gives an explicit gating condition, and the awaitingCustomerConfirm state narrows when the tool applies. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (confirm_task, cancel_task) that an agent might otherwise pick, so it falls short of a full when-not/alternative statement.

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