reopenIssue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool publishes a status (mechanism), but does not describe side effects, permissions, whether the issue state is updated, or what happens if the issue is already open. The status code 1630 is mentioned without explanation, making the behavior only partially transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits critical information, but the conciseness itself is not the issue; the lack of substance is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of status 1630, the role of the required keys, or the expected outcome, leaving an agent with insufficient context 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (issueId, ownerPubkey, repoId, privkey, relays, content). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter relationships and required values.

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: publishing status 1630 (open) for an issue, which effectively reopens it. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from closeIssue and other siblings. However, it relies on the tool name to convey the full meaning and uses the vague qualifier 'Convenience' rather than explicitly stating 'reopens an issue.'

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like closeIssue or createIssue. The word 'Convenience' implies it is a shortcut, but there is no explicit context for when it is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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