reopen_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, state changes, permissions, or error conditions. It only states the action and lists parameters, offering no transparency beyond the minimal.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the 'Args' section redundantly mirrors the schema without adding value, making it slightly less concise than optimal.

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?

Given 4 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should cover success/error scenarios and usage context. It lacks information on version mismatch errors, required permissions, or what happens on success, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 add meaning. It restates parameter names for project_key, repo_slug, and pr_id without extra context. Only the 'version' parameter gets additional explanation ('required for optimistic locking'), which is helpful but insufficient for full semantic clarity.

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 'Reopen a previously declined pull request.' uses a specific verb (reopen) and resource (previously declined pull request), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'decline_pull_request' or 'merge_pull_request'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'convert_to_draft' or 'publish_draft_pull_request'). The name implies usage for declined PRs, but no explicit context or prerequisites are provided.

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