Reopen a previously closed contract period by ID to resume billing or make adjustments when a period was closed prematurely.
Reopen a previously closed contract period.
Args: id: Contract Period ID to reopen fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a state-changing operation ('reopen') but says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to related contract data.
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 two short sentences with a clean Args section. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary text.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits authorization requirements, side effects, failure modes, and return behavior, leaving an agent with insufficient context to call it safely.
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 explains both parameters: 'id' as the Contract Period ID to reopen and 'fields' as additional fields to return. However, 'additional fields to return' is vague and lacks format details.
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 and resource: 'Reopen a previously closed contract period.' It implies the inverse of accelo_close_contract_period, but does not explicitly name any sibling tool for differentiation.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accelo_close_contract_period or accelo_get_contract_period. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.