rlm_htask_unblock

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

The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 're-evaluate ancestor status', which is not implied by the name alone. However, with no annotations, it does not cover important traits like side effects (e.g., state changes, permissions) or what happens if the task is already unblocked.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Unblock a task') and immediately adds the secondary behavior. 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?

The description is minimal. It does not explain what 'unblock' entails (e.g., removing a blocker flag, changing status), nor does it cover the optional 'resolution' parameter's purpose. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing return values or confirmation steps. More context is needed for a mutating tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning for the parameters (e.g., what 'resolution' means or how 'swarm_id' is used). Schema alone provides adequate semantics.

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 ('Unblock a task') and adds the distinct behavior 're-evaluate ancestor status', which differentiates it from siblings like rlm_htask_block (which blocks) and rlm_htask_complete (which completes). The verb-resource pair is specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_htask_block or rlm_htask_complete. The description implies it is the counterpart to blocking, but fails to state prerequisites (e.g., the task must be blocked first) or when not to use it.

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