aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_reopen_superseded_task_link

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares this is a user write, enumerates side effects (increments reopen_generation, restores NeedFix to accepted status, writes an audit event), and states the precondition of a verified archived/superseded link. It stops short of covering failure behavior or permission requirements, which is the only gap for a mutating 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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with the operation identity before the conditions and effects. Density is high and nearly every clause earns its place, though the long compound sentence about conversion/successor naming is heavier than it needs to be.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies purpose, gating conditions, side effects, and the sibling alternative, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only error/failure semantics and permission requirements are left implicit.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds a semantic constraint the schema does not encode: needfix_id must point at a NeedFix whose linked task is verifiably archived or superseded, and confirm=True is mandatory rather than merely defaulted. That is meaningful signal beyond the field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (reopen) on a specific resource (a NeedFix whose linked converted task was archived/superseded), and the 'USER WRITE' prefix signals the mutation class immediately. An agent can tell this apart from the generic needfix_transition sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('a converted task was superseded or archived without resolving the NeedFix so a new conversion can mint a successor -rN task') and names the alternative to use otherwise (aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_transition for normal lifecycle changes). Prerequisites (confirm=True, a verified archived/superseded linked task) are stated up front.

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