rlm_task_reassign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral constraints: IN_PROGRESS requires force=true, COMPLETED/FAILED cannot be reassigned, and new_agent_id can be null to unassign. However, it does not mention potential side effects or error conditions beyond state restrictions.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It uses a clear opening sentence, bullet points for usage, and a structured paragraph for state-specific rules, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required), the description covers purpose, usage, state restrictions, and parameter details. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but the core functionality is well-documented.

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 is 3. The description adds value by explaining the force parameter as 'admin override' and clarifying that new_agent_id can be null to unassign, which is not fully captured in the schema description.

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 ('Reassign a canonical HierarchicalTask N3 task to a different agent') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like rlm_task_claim or rlm_task_create that have different purposes.

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 explicitly lists use cases (move work from busy/stuck agent, rebalance workload, recover tasks) and provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance based on task state and the force parameter.

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