reopen_task

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the concrete state change — clearing the completion timestamp — which tells the agent exactly what is mutated; it stops short of saying what happens if the task isn't currently completed.

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?

A single ten-word sentence that front-loads the action and its effect with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema that carries return values, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of behavior on a non-completed task.

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%, with both task_id and task_list_id documented as exact Google IDs rather than names. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Reopen') and resource ('a completed task') and adds the state effect ('clear its completion timestamp'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling complete_task, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 intent to undo a completion is implied by 'Reopen a completed task', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative named (e.g. update_task), and no statement about prerequisites such as the task already being completed.

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