reopen task

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

The description states the core behavior—reopening and restoring previous status—which adds context beyond the annotations that it is non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. However, it leaves unspecified what 'previous status' resolves to, whether it validates that the task is completed, or how it handles already-open tasks. Given the annotations cover 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the action and result without unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, exemplifying efficient structure.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and minimal complexity, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be improved by clarifying the meaning of 'previous status' and referencing sibling restore_task, but for a simple action tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema exposes only task_id with type and format, and the description mentions 'Task' but not the parameter explicitly. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but the single parameter is self-evident and largely explained by the tool's name and description. No additional meaning is added, yet none is critically needed.

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 action: reopen a completed Task and restore its previous status. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like restore_task, but the phrase 'completed Task' narrows the scope sufficiently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as restore_task or unarchive_task. The description implies usage for completing tasks but does not state exclusions or preferences, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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