Reopen a completed task by setting its status to NEEDS-ACTION and removing the completion timestamp, making it active again.
Reopen a completed task: status NEEDS-ACTION, completion timestamp removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | The task uid. | |
| etag | No | Etag from get_task, to make the write conditional. | |
| list | No | Task list uri or display name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the exact state transition, including removal of the completion timestamp. It does not cover edge-case behavior, but the annotations reduce the burden.
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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and its two key effects. There is no filler or redundant content.
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 simple mutating tool, the description combined with the schema and annotations is complete: required uid, conditional etag, list disambiguation, and exact state effects are all covered. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already provides meaningful descriptions for uid, etag, and list. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Reopen') and resource ('a completed task'), and states the concrete outcome: status NEEDS-ACTION and completion timestamp removed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_task.
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 intended use is clear: reactivate a task that was previously completed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_task or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.