Reopen stage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds the precise behavioral detail of the state change (COMPLETED to ACTIVE), which goes beyond the annotations and provides useful context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Reopen' and a precise state transition. There is no wasted text or redundant information.

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 state-change operation, the description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides enough context. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The sibling tools show related operations, but the description is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with each parameter having a description (board_id, stage_id, board_slug). The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already handles that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantic value beyond 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 clearly states a specific action ('reopen') on a specific resource ('stage') with an explicit state transition ('from COMPLETED to ACTIVE'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_board_stage and start_board_stage, which handle opposite or different transitions.

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 for when to use the tool: when a stage is in COMPLETED state and needs to return to ACTIVE. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the state transition implies the precondition and usage scenario, which is sufficient for this tool.

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