teamleader_reopen_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without revealing side effects, requirements (e.g., the project must exist and be closed), or consequences of misuse. It doesn't specify what happens if the project is already open or if the id is invalid.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, though this brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral transparency.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotation support and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify preconditions, error states, or the effect on project status. The single sentence does not tell the agent when it is safe or appropriate to call this tool.

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?

The schema already documents the 'id' parameter with a description 'The project ID to reopen', so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'reopen' with a clear resource 'project', making it distinct from siblings like teamleader_close_project. It clearly states the object of the action.

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 no context for when to use this tool as opposed to others. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as the project must be previously closed, nor does it note any alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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