gitea_reopen_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the operation as state-changing (reopen), but fails to disclose idempotency, error handling (what if PR doesn't exist?), return values, or authorization requirements. Minimal behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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 (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that adds no value for tool selection. The core sentence is efficient, but the prefix reduces clarity without providing useful context.

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-changing operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, side effects, rate limiting, or the specific state transition rules (e.g., can merged PRs be reopened?). The 0% schema coverage exacerbates the incompleteness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the four parameters (site, owner, repo, pr_number). It adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema field names imply. While the names are somewhat self-documenting, the description fails to explain formats or relationships (e.g., that site refers to a Gitea instance).

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 specific action (reopen) and target resource (pull request), distinguishing it from siblings like gitea_close_pull_request or gitea_create_pull_request. However, it lacks explicit contrast with gitea_update_pull_request and doesn't clarify edge cases (e.g., merged vs. closed PRs), preventing a 5.

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 phrase 'closed pull request' implies the tool only works on PRs in closed state, not open ones. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reopen versus creating a new PR, error conditions for already-open PRs, or prerequisites like required permissions.

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