tempo_reopen_timesheet

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint): it discloses that the operation reverses an approval, that a confirmation prompt is required where supported, and that clients without elicitation get a preview plus confirmToken on the first call with only a repeat token-bearing call proceeding. This is exactly the behavioral context needed for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and state transition before the confirmation mechanics, and every sentence carries information. The third sentence is dense with the elicitation fallback details but is warranted for a destructive tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the essential call semantics: the state transition, the reviewer role, and the two-step confirmation protocol including the confirmToken contract. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without triggering an unintended approval reversal.

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 100%, so all six parameters (including confirmToken and reviewerAccountId) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the two-phase confirmToken usage but adds no new parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — reopen an already-approved timesheet — and names the resulting state change (returns to OPEN so worklogs can be edited). This clearly separates it from sibling state-transition tools like tempo_approve_timesheet, tempo_reject_timesheet, and tempo_recall_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?

Declares the actor and context: 'Reviewer action — this undoes an approval,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus a user-initiated recall. It stops short of explicitly naming recall_timesheet/reject_timesheet as alternatives or stating prerequisites (e.g. the timesheet must currently be APPROVED).

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