reopen_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core state-changing behavior ('Reopen a previously closed board/sprint') and the precondition ('previously closed'). However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling for already-open boards, permissions, or side effects, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes a useful counterpart reference, and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 two-ID mutation tool, the description adequately conveys the primary purpose and relationship to close_board, but lacks details such as behavior when the board is already open, required preconditions beyond 'previously closed', or what response to expect. No output schema or annotations increase the burden on the description, so this is only minimally 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 input schema contains two required integer parameters (project_id, board_id) with no descriptions, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not; only the self-explanatory parameter names provide minimal guidance.

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 identifies the resource as 'previously closed board/sprint', which clearly states the tool's action and scope. It also mentions 'counterpart to close_board', uniquely distinguishing it from sibling reopen tools like reopen_project and reopen_milestone.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is for previously closed boards/sprints and explicitly identifies it as the counterpart to close_board, implying it should be used to reverse a close_board action. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling distinction is mostly implicit.

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