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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-value note ('Returns the updated board') and an ambiguity-handling behavior, but says nothing about why the operation is flagged destructive or what happens to the task's prior state.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the primary trigger front-loaded before the secondary ambiguous-name instruction. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained in depth, and the description still mentions the updated board. The ambiguity instruction rounds it out; the only real gap is the undocumented optional 'board' parameter.

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 67%; title and toColumn are documented in the schema, while 'board' is undescribed. The description implies board context ('on its board') and that title is the addressing key, but adds no format or matching rules beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('task moved to another column on its board') and pins down the board/column mechanics, which is exactly what separates it from add_task, complete_task, or list_tasks. An agent can identify the operation 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?

It gives a clear trigger ('Use this when the user wants a specific task moved...') and even handles the ambiguous-name case by asking the user. It does not explicitly rule out or route to sibling tools such as complete_task or list_tasks, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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