update_remediation_task

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational prerequisite beyond annotations: the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate, which an agent must satisfy before calling. It does not discuss side effects or response behavior, but the added write gate is meaningful.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste; the resource and lookup key are front-loaded, followed by the operational gate. Every clause 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?

For a mutation tool with annotations, a fully documented six-parameter schema, and no output schema, the definition covers the essential call requirements and highlights the write gate. It could mention confirming the target record or the response shape, but it is substantially complete.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including state enums, sys_id format, and date format. The description only names a subset of fields (state, assignee, group, target date, etc.) and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update a Remediation Task by sys_id, and lists representative mutable fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_task or update_problem by naming the exact resource, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

It implies usage through 'by sys_id', but there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_task or update_vulnerability, and no prerequisite such as using list_remediation_tasks to obtain the sys_id. The only condition given is the write gate, which is not a usage guideline.

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