tempo_reopen_timesheet

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that the action undoes an approval, returns the timesheet to OPEN, and requires user confirmation. It also explains the two-step fallback behavior involving a preview and confirmToken, which is critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core action and outcome, and then provides essential confirmation-flow detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive, confirmation-gated tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the confirmation mechanism, and the fallback token flow. It could additionally describe the final success response or required permissions, but the reference to 'Reviewer action' and the detailed confirmation instructions make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that confirmToken is only for the two-step fallback and must never be sent on the first call, and it references tempo_get_periods for finding valid period boundaries. This helps the agent use the parameters correctly without relying solely on 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 names a specific verb ('Reopen'), a specific resource ('a user's already-approved timesheet'), and the resulting state ('returning it to OPEN so worklogs can be edited again'). It also explicitly frames the action as a 'Reviewer action' that 'undoes an approval,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tempo_approve_timesheet, tempo_reject_timesheet, and tempo_submit_timesheet.

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 clearly states this is a reviewer action that undoes an approval, giving the agent the key condition for when to invoke it. It also provides explicit guidance on the confirmation flow, including the two-step fallback with confirmToken and the instruction to call again with the same arguments. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the reviewer/undo framing makes the usage context clear.

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