rlm_task_unclaim

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the task returns to PENDING status and becomes available for re-claiming. However, it does not mention side effects like required permissions or effects on other agents.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides context for appropriate use.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action and a typical use case. However, it lacks examples or details about the required parameters, which could enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra information about parameter usage beyond what is in the schema.

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 'Unclaim' and the resource 'canonical HierarchicalTask N3 task', and specifies the outcome 'returning it to PENDING status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rlm_claim and rlm_task_claim.

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 states 'Use this to recover tasks that are stuck (claimed but not progressing)', providing a clear use case. It implies when not to use (if task is progressing) but does not explicitly state alternatives.

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