reopen_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does useful work by disclosing an ownership/permission constraint via reference to complete_task. It remains silent on side effects, failure modes (already-open task, task with dependents), and whether reopening requires a tasklist. Partial but meaningful disclosure for a mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical adds real information rather than restating. Slightly dense given it compresses an important authorization rule into a cross-reference.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description does not say what gets changed, whether the tasklist param is required to locate the task, or what the user_requested flag does. Too thin for the tool's 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% — task_id, tasklist, and user_requested have no descriptions anywhere — and the description supplies nothing about them. The mention of an ownership rule is the only implied gating context, leaving user_requested in particular unexplained.

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 concrete verb (mark as not done) and resource (a completed task), making the inverse-of-complete relationship clear. It stops short of distinguishing itself from update_task, which could plausibly also change status, so it is not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 only usage guidance is the parenthetical 'same ownership rule as complete_task', which is an authorization hint rather than a when-to-use/when-not rule. It never says to prefer this over update_task for status changes, nor what to do if the task is not currently completed.

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