gitea_reopen_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only adds that the target is a 'closed issue' but fails to disclose idempotency behavior (what happens if already open), required permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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 appropriately brief with the core action front-loaded. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag and trailing newline are minor structural inefficiencies that don't add value.

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 state-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should address error cases (e.g., attempting to reopen an already open issue), authentication requirements, or the return value structure.

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% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like 'site' (Gitea instance URL), 'owner', 'repo', or 'issue_number'. While some parameters are intuitive, 'site' particularly lacks context.

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 action ('Reopen') and resource ('issue'), and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like gitea_close_issue and gitea_create_issue. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is extraneous metadata but doesn't significantly obscure the purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to reopen vs. create a new issue), nor any mention of prerequisites or preconditions beyond the implied 'closed issue' state.

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