board_update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that moving a task to a different project requires the target project to exist and that subtasks are not automatically moved, which is a critical behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention other side effects like idempotency or auth requirements.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and immediately follow with the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters including nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a critical behavioral detail. However, it does not explain the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful but are not required since no output schema exists.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the project_id parameter's behavior (subtask handling warning). Other parameters are self-explanatory from the schema descriptions, so no significant additional meaning is needed.

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 explicitly states it updates a task's status, assignment, priority, RIPER mode, project, or other fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like board_create_task or board_delete_task. It uses specific verbs and resources.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to update various task fields) and includes a specific warning about moving tasks between projects and the need to handle subtasks separately. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, it provides sufficient context for usage decisions.

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