reopen_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and clearly requires confirm=true after explicit human approval. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but the core behavioral risk is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The destructive warning and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite a clear purpose and strong behavioral warning, the tool has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description does not explain the meaning or format of the required parameters, so an agent is left guessing about reason and the target identifiers.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for the confirm parameter ('requires confirm=true') and leaves owner, repo, issue_number, and reason completely unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Reopen a closed issue.' It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like close_issue, but the action is unambiguous and easy to map to the tool name.

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?

It gives context for when to use the tool (reopening a closed issue) and references the close_issue flow, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to alternatives. The confirm requirement is useful guidance, but exclusions are missing.

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