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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'Idempotent' merely repeats structured data. However, the description adds genuine side-effect context beyond annotations: moving to semantic='doing' starts cycle-time tracking and moving to semantic='done' records completion time. It stops short of disclosing reordering side effects on other tasks' positions.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, then the alternative routing, then side effects. Every sentence carries information, though the 'semantic=doing/done' clause introduces a concept not present in the schema and costs some clarity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering permissions or return values, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs (idempotency, column-ID prerequisite, cycle-time/completion side effects). Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens to the vacated position or invalid column IDs.

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 carry the burden, and it partially does: it points to list_columns as the source of toColumnId and implies position controls intra-column ordering. It never explains position's indexing/range semantics (schema only gives 0..MAX_SAFE_INTEGER) and references a 'semantic' value that is not an actual parameter, which could mislead.

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 ('move a task to a specific column or change its order within a column') and immediately distinguishes the operation from start_task/complete_task. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus its closest siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('move a task to a specific column') and when-to-prefer-an-alternative ('For your OWN workflow ... prefer start_task / complete_task, which need no column ID'), plus the prerequisite that a columnId must come from list_columns. Nothing is left to inference.

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