Move Ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by requiring a completionSummary when moving to Done and noting that deployment proof is optional. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the move is reversible, whether it triggers anything downstream, or authorization 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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then giving the key condition. It is tight and readable, though 'Deployment proof is optional' slightly repeats what the schema already states.

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?

Although an output schema exists, an agent still lacks essential operational context: the schema requires only ticketId but the tool needs a target column, and it is unclear whether columnId or columnName should be provided, or how they interact. The Done-related guidance is helpful but does not make the tool fully callable in non-Done cases.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful detail for completionSummary, enumerating the three required elements, and clarifies deploymentProof is optional. Yet it leaves columnId, columnName, and priority unexplained, so parameter meaning remains incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move a ticket to another column.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like kanban_update_ticket and kanban_reorder_column_tickets, and the Done-column condition adds precision.

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 implies usage: whenever moving a ticket between columns. It gives a clear conditional rule for Done, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over kanban_update_ticket or kanban_reorder_column_tickets, nor does it mention exclusions such as completing vs staging.

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