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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Idempotent' and 'without deleting it' largely restate structured data. It does add a modestly useful clarification that the task remains on the board, but the safety/idempotency profile is already fully covered by annotations.

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 short sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded, then the outcome and idempotency note. No filler; every sentence carries 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 single-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the effect, and the idempotency trait adequately. Only the absence of alternatives/prerequisites keeps it from being fully 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 description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter taskId is self-describing via its uuid format and pattern, and the description implies it identifies 'a task.' It adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema's type, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (detach a task from its current sprint) and clarifies the outcome ('without deleting it. The task remains on the board'), which distinguishes it from delete/trash siblings. It does not name a specific sibling, but the effect 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to detach a task from its current sprint') and implicitly excludes deletion semantics via 'without deleting it.' No explicit alternatives (e.g., add_task_to_sprint, trash_task) are named, so it stops just short of a 5.

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