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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the target state (done column), discloses the return value (updated board), and specifies the ambiguity-handling policy of asking the user first, which is behavioral guidance not present in 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the trigger condition is front-loaded and the edge-case handling follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values (though it does briefly). For a destructive mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers when to invoke, the state change, and the ambiguous-match policy; only the board parameter's semantics remain unaddressed.

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 50%: title is documented in the schema as 'matched by title', and the description reinforces that matching is by name. The board parameter has no description in either place, though 'the board's done column' implies board scoping. This is the baseline-3 situation where the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Moves it to the board's done column and returns the updated board'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling move_task, which handles arbitrary column moves, so an agent must infer the distinction from 'done column'.

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 triggering condition ('when the user says a specific task is done and names it') plus fallback behavior when several or no tasks match. It does not name the alternative tool (move_task) for cases where the destination isn't 'done', so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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