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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the null-sprintId backlog behavior, the cross-project validation constraint, and the exact permission scopes required. It stops short of describing side effects on the task's prior sprint membership or the response shape.

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: purpose, edge-case semantics, then constraints and permissions. The most decision-relevant information (what moves, and the null special case) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the null edge case, validation constraints, and authorization. It omits what the return value contains and whether the task is removed from a previous sprint, which are minor gaps given the rest of the coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description slightly restates the null=backlog meaning already in the schema. It earns the extra point by adding a cross-parameter constraint (sprint and task must share a project) that the schema cannot express.

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 one task into a sprint') and immediately disambiguates the special case that sprintId=null returns it to the backlog. Combined with the existence of sibling tools like move_task_to_epic and update_task, an agent can tell exactly what this does 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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: the sprint must belong to the same project as the task, and the caller needs task.edit.any or task.edit.own on their own task. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., move_task_to_epic, update_task) or say when not to use it, but the eligibility conditions are unusually concrete.

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