rlm_task_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changing status to COMPLETED/FAILED automatically sets completedAt, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like whether updates trigger other side effects, validation rules, or required permissions beyond 'admin only'.

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 succinct (~80 words), well-structured with a lead sentence, bulleted list of fields, and a note. No redundant information.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema, the description should ideally mention return value or confirmation. It lacks side-effect details (e.g., whether validation occurs, if partial updates are allowed). Among many task-related siblings, no guidance is provided for tool selection. Adequate but incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing modifiable fields and noting the automatic completedAt behavior, which is not present in the schema. The bulleted list reiterates some schema info but the note provides meaningful addition.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('canonical HierarchicalTask N3 properties through the legacy task surface'), and specifies admin-only access. It distinguishes from siblings like rlm_htask_update by mentioning 'legacy task surface', but does not explicitly differentiate from rlm_task_complete or other task update tools.

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 includes 'admin only' which hints at authorization context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_htask_update or rlm_task_complete. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools is given.

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