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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing side effects: moving to semantic='doing' starts cycle-time tracking, moving to semantic='done' records completion time, and the operation is idempotent. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the trigger condition, the alternative guidance, and the side-effect warning are each distinct and front-loaded. Every sentence 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 tool with 3 required params, no output schema, and annotations that already cover idempotency, the description covers the main usage scenario, the prerequisite (list_columns), the side effects, and alternatives. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but given the simple signature, this is nearly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. While it doesn't document individual parameter formats, it gives essential operational context (requires columnId from list_columns, must specify position and target column). The id, toColumnId, and position semantics are partially inferred rather than fully explained, but the description provides the key conceptual meaning.

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?

Description states the exact verb+resource ('move a task to a specific column or change its order within a column') and distinguishes it from start_task/complete_task. The distinction from siblings is explicit, naming the preferred alternatives for the user's own workflow.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (move to specific column/change order), states it needs a columnId from list_columns, and names alternatives (start_task/complete_task) that require no column ID. This gives clear when/when-not guidance.

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