reopen_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the authorization model (either party, not just the author), the audit side effect (who and why recorded in message history), and idempotent behavior on open messages. It omits whether reopening re-notifies parties or what the state transition returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, authority, audit effect, and edge case. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the operation, authority, audit behavior, and no-op case for a simple 2-parameter mutation. Only the semantics of the optional reason parameter remain under-explained.

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 0%, so neither message_id nor reason is documented structurally. 'Records who reopened it and why' loosely implies a reason field but never names it, its optionality, or expected format, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (reopen) and a narrowly-scoped resource (a resolved action_required message), which cleanly separates it from resolve_message, confirm_resolution, and send_message. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition and an example ('the executor who discovers their own fix was incomplete'), and explicitly notes the no-op case for open messages. It stops short of naming sibling tools to prefer in adjacent situations, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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