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

Annotations are all false and carry no behavioral detail, so the description bears the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the return value ('report the old and new column'), the error behavior for unknown columns ('refused, listing the real ones'), and the side effect on completion status. This substantially exceeds what the structured annotations provide.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core action+return, error handling, and side effects. The most decision-relevant fact (moving and reporting columns) is front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the success return ('old and new column'), error mode (unknown column), and completion side effects — the key things an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: behavior for an invalid/nonexistent id or moving to the same column is unspecified, but these are low-stakes for this 2-parameter tool.

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% with both parameters already described (e.g., 'NOVA-12', 'doing'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only validation behavior for the column parameter (unknown columns are refused), which is behavioral rather than semantic. It does not add format, constraints, or default info beyond the schema.

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-resource pair ('Move one task to another column of its own board') and immediately differentiates scope from siblings via the board constraint. The done-column nuance ('stamps completion; leaving it clears it') distinguishes it from task_done and task_update, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 clear operational context: the board constraint and done-column side effects tell an agent when this tool accomplishes status changes. However, it never names sibling alternatives explicitly (e.g., task_done or task_update) nor says when not to use them, so the guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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