reopen_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it scopes the mutation to the done flag only, enumerates the preserved fields (title, tags, priority, due day, plan, alarm), states idempotency for open tasks, and quotes the exact error for an unknown id. That is mutation scope, side effects, and failure mode all in one short paragraph.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by what is preserved, the no-op case, the alternative, and the error. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state transition, preserved state, idempotency, error contract, and return value ('Returns the task'). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents its provenance via a sibling tool, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the failure behavior for an unknown id, not any new semantics for the id argument itself.

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 and resource ('Reopen a done task') plus the resulting state ('so it is open again'), which is more precise than the bare name. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling complete_task, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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 the trigger condition (task is done), the no-op condition (already open), and names the inverse tool ('To mark a task done, use complete_task'). Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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