Reopen a completed task to active status by providing explicit review evidence, authorization, actor, and profile references.
Request Core T6 done to active with explicit reopen evidence and authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| review_ref | Yes | ||
| profile_ref | Yes | ||
| authorization_ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints that authorization and evidence are required, but says nothing about side effects, whether the transition is reversible, what happens to prior approvals/reviews, or failure modes—significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, but efficiency is undercut by opaque jargon ('Core T6', 'done to active') that consumes the sentence without adding comprehensible meaning.
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 five-parameter, all-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It neither explains the parameters nor the operational consequences of the transition, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it 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 0% across five required parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at 'evidence' and 'authorization' without mapping them to review_ref, authorization_ref, profile_ref, actor, or task_id. The agent gets no field-level meaning beyond what the bare property names suggest.
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 name and description together convey a state transition (done -> active) on a task, which distinguishes it from siblings like claim_task or submit_task. However, the phrase 'Core T6' is unexplained internal jargon that blocks a clean reading of what the tool actually does, so the purpose is only partially clear.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (approve_task, reject_task, claim_task), nor any stated preconditions or when-not-to-use cases. 'Explicit reopen evidence and authorization' implies prerequisites exist but never spells out the conditions that should trigger a reopen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.