reopen_task

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

With no annotations, the description partly carries the burden. It discloses admin-only authorization and the reset_progress effect, but omits behavioral traits like status changes to the task or error conditions beyond the return format.

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 moderately concise but could be cleaner. It mixes Japanese and English, and the structure places the admin note before the argument list. The return line is helpful.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should be more thorough. It lacks explanation of what constitutes a terminal task, prerequisites, or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not provided, so the description's return summary is useful but insufficient.

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 description adds meaning for all three parameters, clarifying task_id, reset_progress, and caller_agent_id. However, it falsely marks caller_agent_id as required (schema says optional), which could mislead the agent into providing it unnecessarily or omitting it incorrectly. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially but with a contradiction.

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 resumes a terminal task, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_task_status or report_task_progress, which could also modify task state.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies admin-only access but does not state prerequisites like the task must be in a terminal state, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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