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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely valuable consequences the agent could not infer: the task receives a new number in the target board, and status resets to the target default when the current status is absent there. It stops short of saying whether comments, checklists, or history follow the task.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the two behavioral caveats follow immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core outcome but leaves open important questions: what happens to comments, checklist items, attachments, and activity history, and whether the source task disappears. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent handling a task move.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further parameter-level detail such as whether task_number must refer to an open task or how board IDs are obtained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('transfer a task between boards') that is clearly distinct from siblings like update_task, clone_board, and move_board. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of the 5 bar, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 opening 'Use this to transfer a task between boards' implies the usage context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., clone_board plus delete_task) or any preconditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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