reopen_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (status changes to PENDING) and the return type (updated task data), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects on related fields.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences plus a structured Args/Returns block. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the main action, precondition, and return value. It could be more complete by distinguishing from restore_task (likely for deleted tasks) or noting whether it only applies to non-deleted tasks, but overall it is adequate.

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 defines task_id as 'ID of the task to reopen', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds little extra depth.

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 completed or canceled task and changes its status to PENDING. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_task or restore_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?

It explicitly mentions the tool is for completed or canceled tasks, giving clear context for appropriate use. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance.

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