teamleader_reopen_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the precondition (task previously complete) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, failure conditions (e.g., what happens if task is already open), permissions required, or any state changes beyond 'reopen'. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and precondition. However, it omits details an agent might need for correct invocation, such as whether the operation is reversible, what error occurs for non-complete tasks, or the resulting task state. Some of this is implied, but it is not explicitly stated.

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% – the single parameter 'id' is described as 'The task ID to reopen' in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Reopen') and resource ('a task') with a scope condition ('had been marked as complete'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like teamleader_complete_task (inverse operation) and teamleader_update_task (general task update) without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'had been marked as complete' conveys an implied precondition for use, but the description stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., teamleader_update_task) or warning when not to use it (e.g., if the task is already open). No explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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