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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful scope: only the status field is changed, other fields remain unchanged. It does not explain valid transitions, whether the status must already exist, or any 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is concise and structurally clear, though it could be more explicit about the distinction from related tools.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the core scope of changing only status. It omits potentially important context such as valid status names, allowed transitions, or the need to reference existing board statuses.

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 task_number, board_id, and status are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 clear action: explicit status moves that leave other fields unchanged. It is specific about the resource being changed and scopes the mutation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like update_task or move_task.

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 phrase 'Use this for' gives implied usage context: status-only changes rather than general task updates. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite conditions.

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