Reopen pull request

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the provider support matrix (Bitbucket unsupported), single-call speed, and the output field list including a `reopened` flag. 'Idempotent' merely restates idempotentHint=true, and auth/permission requirements are not mentioned, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Layered, front-loaded structure: action, usage, anti-usage, cost, return shape, batching. Each line carries distinct information 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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (repo, provider, pr, state, reopened, url). Combined with provider caveats and the misuse case, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and each parameter (pr, repo, reason, provider) is already documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the provider note, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (reopen a closed pull/merge request) and immediately scopes provider support (GitHub, GitLab) with a documented carve-out (Bitbucket returns unsupported). An agent can distinguish this from project_pr_create and other PR siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' (PR closed by mistake, same branch should be reviewed again) and 'Avoid when' (branch deleted or force-pushed) with a named alternative (project_pr_create). The selection rule is fully specified.

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