Reopen Pull Request Comment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds minimal context ('reopen/unresolve'). It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond the operation. With annotations, the bar is lowered, but the description adds limited value.

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 concise with a single paragraph followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary, though no structured breakdown beyond that.

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?

While the tool is simple and annotations plus output schema exist, the description fails to provide sufficient parameter semantics, which is critical given 0% schema coverage. The return value is vague ('Success message').

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 the description must fully explain parameters. It only lists parameter names without any additional meaning or syntax. The schema also lacks descriptions, making the parameters ambiguous.

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 the tool 'reopen( unresolve) a comment on a pull request,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_pull_request_comment.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of being the inverse of resolve is implied but not stated. No when-not or alternative naming is given.

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