oc_task_run_update

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

The description reveals that the tool updates a non-terminal TaskRun and that existing browser tools are unaffected, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the update. With no annotations providing safety hints (all false), the description partially fills the transparency gap.

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 two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by a behavioral note. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value structure nor detail complex parameters like last_evidence (which includes nested objects) or the relationship between parameters like status and resume_reason. The schema provides some descriptions, but 30% coverage leaves significant gaps.

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 description maps several parameters to conceptual actions (e.g., 'progress' to progress_summary, 'item results' to completed_items/failed_items). However, with only 30% schema parameter coverage, the description should clarify all parameters, but it omits ledger_task_ids and workflow_id. The mapping adds value but is incomplete.

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 'Update', identifies the resource as 'non-terminal TaskRun', and lists specific elements that can be updated (progress, item results, cursor, evidence, NEEDS_HELP resume). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that browser tools are unaffected, implying this tool is for task-run state updates only.

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 itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like oc_task_run_needs_help or oc_task_run_complete. However, the input schema for the 'status' parameter provides guidance by restricting allowed values and directing to other tools for non-RUNNING transitions. This indirect guidance is moderately helpful but not front-loaded in the description.

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