vikunja_bucket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes three operations (list-views, list-buckets, move-task) and implies write operations for move-task, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or the effect on task state beyond moving.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core capabilities and provide a helpful example. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (three operations, 6 parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the basics but lacks details like required parameters for each operation, ordering of list operations to get IDs, and error handling. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description should compensate. It mentions the operations and projectId implicitly, but does not explain the meaning or requirements of viewId, bucketId, taskId, or position. The agent has to infer parameter roles from the operation names.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: list a project's views, list a view's buckets, and move a task into a bucket. It uses specific verbs and resource (buckets) and provides an example ('Backlog -> Review -> Done'), differentiating it from sibling tools that handle tasks, labels, etc.

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?

The description includes a clear usage directive: 'Use this to move a task between kanban columns.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or exclude other scenarios.

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