FogBugz

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation with destructive potential. The description adds context that it reopens cases, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'destructive' entails beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise example that reinforces usage. Every sentence earns its place without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with destructive hint), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and provides an example, but could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., effects of reopening, error conditions). However, it adequately supports the structured data provided.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (caseId and comment). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example ('reopen case 42 with comment "Issue reproduced on v2.1"'), but does not explain parameter interactions or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Reopens' and the resource 'a previously closed or resolved FogBugz case,' making the action specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'close_case' and 'resolve_case' by specifying the opposite operation on cases with those states.

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 usage by specifying 'previously closed or resolved' cases, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for open cases) or name alternatives like 'update_case' for other modifications, missing full exclusions.

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