reopen_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reopen') which implies a state mutation, but doesn't describe what 'reopen' entails (e.g., changes status from 'completed' to 'open', preserves other attributes, requires permissions, or has side effects). The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the parameter documentation uses minimal formatting and could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (state mutation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks details on behavioral implications, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation for the single parameter ('The ID of the task to reopen'), which adds basic semantic context beyond the schema's title ('Task Id'). However, it doesn't elaborate on format requirements, validation rules, or where to obtain the ID, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Reopen') and target resource ('a completed task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_task' by specifying the opposite state transition. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update/mutation tools like 'update_task'.

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 provides minimal guidance: it implies this tool should be used on 'completed' tasks, but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'update_task' for status changes, or whether there are prerequisites (e.g., task must be in a specific state). No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are provided.

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