reopen_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It explicitly discloses that the operation 'clears assignee and prior progress', which is critical and potentially destructive. It also notes the return value is a task summary without history. The description is transparent about these behaviors, though it does not discuss permissions or failure conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It states the purpose, the side effects, and the return behavior without wasted words. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, side effects, and return value, but with four parameters and no output schema, it leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the meaning of 'by', 'reason', or 'expected_version', and does not mention potential error cases or prerequisites. The description is useful but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (id, by, reason, expected_version). It does not mention that 'reason' is likely optional or that 'expected_version' is for optimistic locking. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill these fields correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Reopen a cancelled/completed/approved task back to pending'. It uses a specific verb ('reopen') and identifies the resource ('task') and the state transition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_task or approve_task. The scope is explicit.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a task needs to be reopened for re-claiming. It also contrasts with get_task by noting that history[] is not included, directing users to get_task if they need that. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar state changes.

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