Reopen task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safe mutation nature is known. The description adds the specific behavior: it changes the task's state from completed to not done. This goes beyond the annotations and provides the core effect without contradicting them.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and nothing more, making it highly skimmable.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the action and implicitly requires a completed task. It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation do not demand more.

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 both parameters (list and taskId) are fully documented. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the burden.

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: 'Mark a completed task as not done again.' It specifies the verb (mark), the resource (task), and the state change (from completed to not done). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_task (which does the opposite) and update_task (which modifies general fields).

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 gives clear context that this tool is for reopening tasks that are completed. It implies the use case without explicitly naming alternatives, but the phrase 'a completed task' establishes when to use it. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are stated, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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