move_task

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

Annotations already cover read-only false and non-destructive, and the description adds context about use cases but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It provides some value beyond annotations but not substantial behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a useful example ('Blocked' or 'Icebox') without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a mutation tool with three parameters. It could mention edge cases like requiring at least one destination parameter, but the schema and sibling context make the description adequate.

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% coverage for all three parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description does not add any new information about parameter semantics, so it matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 moves a task to another list or project, with specific verbs and resource. It also distinguishes itself from update_status by indicating it is for non-standard stages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for stages that are not part of the todo/in_progress/review/done flow') and contrasts with update_status, providing a clear exclusion and directing to the alternative. This is excellent usage guidance.

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