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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about `column_id` being the destination and `sort` being a float order key, but it does not disclose potential validation behavior, side effects on the previous column, or return behavior.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and wastes no words. It also includes the essential parameter clarification without redundancy.

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 small mutation tool with good annotations and a modest parameter set, the description captures the essential operation and the key semantics of destination and sort order. It lacks explicit alternatives or edge-case disclosures, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool does and how to invoke it.

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 adds meaning for two key parameters: `column_id` as destination column and `sort` as an ascending float order key. However, with schema description coverage at only 20%, `board_id` and `id` remain unexplained by both the schema and description, and `access_key` is only covered by its own schema description.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Move a task to a column at a given sort position.' It also distinguishes the tool by calling it 'the kanban drag-and-drop primitive,' which separates it from the sibling 'move' tool and from task creation/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 provides clear usage context by framing the tool as the kanban drag-and-drop primitive, implying it is for reordering tasks across columns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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