reopen_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core action and its purpose, implying a state change, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the response format. This is a gap for a mutating tool, though the description is more informative than a bare one-liner.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then a brief rationale. No redundant information. Each clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and use case. It could mention what happens after reopening (e.g., status change), but for this complexity level it is adequately complete.

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?

The schema describes project_id generically. The description adds important semantic constraint: the project must be completed or archived to be reopened. This guides the agent on valid target states, adding value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-open') with a clear resource ('a completed or archived project'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reopen_milestone' by targeting projects. It also explains the intended result, adding new milestones or continuing work.

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 provides clear context: it is for projects that are completed or archived and when you need to add milestones or continue work. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined.

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