reopen_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('reopen') but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects on related entities (e.g., boards, milestones), or what happens to the project's state after the operation. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and condition, earning its place with high efficiency.

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 single-parameter state-change tool, the description provides the essential context (what and when). It lacks details about return values or side effects, but in the absence of an output schema and with a simple resource type, this is adequate. The sibling context (close_project) is not explicitly referenced, but the tool's purpose is clear enough.

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 compensate. The only parameter, project_id, is self-explanatory by name, but the description does not add any detail about its format, requiredness, or relationship to the target project. The trivial nature of the parameter keeps the score at a baseline level.

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 ('project'), and clarifies the scope with 'previously closed/archived'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reopen_milestone and reopen_board, which target different resources.

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 phrase 'previously closed/archived' provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a project is in a closed or archived state. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the condition is enough for basic guidance.

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