rlm_htask_policy_update

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses admin-only fields but fails to mention authentication requirements, side effects, reversibility, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (nested object, 3 params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the updates object structure beyond admin fields, nor the behavior when is_admin is false. Lacks details on return values or errors.

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 3. The description adds value by listing admin-only fields (allowStructuralUpdate, allowHardDelete, compatMode), partially compensating for the updates object's lack of sub-schema. However, it doesn't fully explain all possible fields.

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 updates the htask policy for a swarm, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like rlm_htask_policy_get (get policy) and rlm_htask_update (update htask, not policy).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rlm_htask_update or other policy-related tools. The admin-only fields note is a constraint but not a usage guideline.

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