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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: batch operation, partial-failure semantics where one failed task does not block others, and the result field 'tarefas[].ok'. It also discloses the Astrea domain rule that deadline-less tasks do not remain on the kanban, which is critical for correct invocation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then uses a compact bullet list for parameters and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, including the behavioral note about partial failure and the deadline rule.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description still explains the relevant result shape ('tarefas[].ok') and partial-failure behavior. It also covers the key prerequisite and optional-parameter inference, leaving no important gap for correct invocation.

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 parameter meaning, and it does: task_ids are task ids discoverable via listing/creation tools, column_id is the destination column discoverable via astrea_kanbans, and kanban_id is optional because it can be inferred from the column. This fully documents all three parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: moving one or several TAREFAS to another kanban column in Astrea, with a concrete analogy to dragging a card. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as astrea_tarefa_editar, astrea_tarefas_listar, and astrea_kanbans.

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 clear usage context, including examples of column transitions and pointers to astrea_tarefas_listar / astrea_tarefa_criar for task ids and astrea_kanbans for column ids. It also provides an important prerequisite: if the task has no deadline, use astrea_tarefa_editar first because Astrea will not keep deadline-less tasks on the kanban.

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