reopen_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'reopen' but does not mention any mutational side effects (e.g., changing status), whether it requires specific permissions, if it is reversible, or what happens to associated timers or subtasks. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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?

A single sentence, direct and to the point. It is concise and easy to parse, but lacks any additional helpful details that could strengthen the definition.

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 is a mutative action (reopening a task) with no annotations, no output schema, and no details on side effects, prerequisites, or return value. For its simplicity, it is minimally acceptable but incomplete given the lack of contextual or behavioral information.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Project the task belongs to', 'Task id'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters, but since the schema fully describes them, this is acceptable.

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 'Reopen a previously completed task.' clearly indicates the action and the object, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'complete_task' or 'update_task' beyond naming the reverse operation. It lacks specific context about what 'complete' vs 'reopen' means in this system.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a counterpoint to complete_task, but does not state when either should be used. An agent would have to infer its usage from the tool name context.

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