Reopen an archived work card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description's key value is the 'ID never changes' guarantee and the mechanism (moving out of archive directory into a live status). However, it doesn't disclose things like whether reopened cards retain notes/memory, or what happens to the prior done/archived status beyond the archive flag. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The first delivers the purpose and action; the second delivers the critical behavioral guarantee (ID stability). Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to detail returns. The key forward-looking guarantee (ID never changes) is stated. It could briefly note that reopening impacts references for the status param or the actor field, but the essentials are covered for this moderately complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all 4 params are documented. The description adds meaningful context on the 'id' param (the one that never changes) and complements the 'status' enum by clarifying the card is 'brought back into a live status.' It reinforces the expectedRevision semantics through the 'write is refused if no longer matches' phrasing, adding practical value beyond the schema's 'skip the check' note.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Move an archived card back out of the archive directory and into a live status.' Specifies what it does and the key net effect (the ID never changes, references keep resolving). While it's clear and distinct from siblings like project_card_archive (the inverse action), it doesn't explicitly name a sibling as a contrast, so not quite a 5.

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 implies this is used after project_card_archive, and states the ID-stability benefit. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus project_card_transition or project_card_write (which also affect status), nor state any preconditions or exclusions for when reopening is appropriate.

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