ralph.set_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation target and a role/phase restriction, but it does not explain failure behavior, whether unchecking is similarly restricted, or any broader authorization or side effects.

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 sentences deliver the action, target, selection method, and the critical Phase 3 persona restriction. There is no filler, and the most important operational constraint is clearly front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it does, where it acts, how to identify tasks, and a key policy restriction. It is slightly incomplete regarding the text-vs-taskId relationship, but it is sufficient for a basic correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that text or taskId selects the task and that checked toggles the state, but it does not clarify that text is required while taskId is optional, nor how both interact when supplied.

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 specific action ('Check/uncheck a task') and the exact resource (.ralph/fix_plan.md). This distinguishes it from related task-state siblings like block_task and unblock_task, which imply a different status operation.

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 gives a concrete usage constraint: in Phase 3, only the QA-close persona should call this with checked:true, and only after Dev agrees sign-off. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when checked:false is appropriate.

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