reopen_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Reopen') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if tasks are already open. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, with the second clarifying identification options. There's no redundant information, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter guidance).

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and comprehensive parameter usage. Given the complexity of reopening tasks (which may involve state transitions), more context is needed for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate but provides incomplete parameter guidance. It mentions 'task_id' or 'task_name' as identification methods, but doesn't explain the 'items' array structure, whether both fields can be used together, or if multiple tasks can be reopened at once. The description adds some meaning but leaves key parameter semantics unclear.

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 action ('Reopen') and resource ('tasks in Todoist'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'close_tasks' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'reopen' means in this context (e.g., marking incomplete tasks from a completed 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?

The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning two identification methods ('task_id' or 'task_name'), but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., tasks must be closed), compare with similar tools like 'update_tasks', or indicate typical scenarios for reopening tasks.

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