reopenProject

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Reopen project' without explaining state changes, permissions required, side effects, or whether it's destructive. This is a major gap for a mutating operation.

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 extremely concise (two words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential details that should be present in a minimal viable description.

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's complexity (nested parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no context about return values, allowed states, or how reopening differs from archiving/closing.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the 'pathParams' object, 'format', or 'projectId'. The agent cannot infer the purpose or format of the parameters from the description.

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 'Reopen project' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'unarchiveProject' or 'closeProject'. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, but lacks distinguishing context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unarchiveProject, updateProject). It doesn't mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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