move_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only the task's line is rewritten and that a concurrent on-disk change causes no write and an error return (optimistic concurrency). It does not mention permissions, auth requirements, or what a successful call returns, leaving modest gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the concurrency caveat immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational semantics (partial line rewrite, conflict-triggered error with no write). It could be slightly more complete on success behavior or auth, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (id and column) are already fully documented in the schema, including the id format and where to find column ids. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (moves) and resource (a task) plus the target domain (another column of the Kanban board), which cleanly separates it from siblings like toggle_task, set_task_date, and get_kanban. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: it should be used when a task needs to change columns. No explicit when-not conditions or alternatives are named, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the task id must come from list_tasks/get_kanban) are stated, though that is partially covered by the schema.

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