Reopen a completed task to mark it as incomplete again. Use this to correct accidental completions or reactivate tasks.
Reopens a completed task (status=0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task id | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id, or "inbox" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the target status value but nothing about permissions, whether the reopen is idempotent, what happens to completion dates or subtasks, or any error behavior on an already-open task.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding. Nothing needs trimming.
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 two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. However, with no annotations it should at least state whether a completed precondition exists and what the operation affects.
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% for both parameters, including the 'inbox' special value for projectId, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.
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?
Gives a specific verb ('Reopens') and resource ('a completed task'), plus the resulting status value, so the agent can distinguish it from complete_task and delete_task. It stops short of naming the sibling it is the inverse of, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied (undo a completion), but the description never states when to prefer this over the adjacent siblings restore_task or update_task, nor any precondition such as the task currently being completed. The agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.