write_set_state

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation behavior: state read-back (confirms the result read back), and the side-effect that moving a task out of its initial state can advance its user story (parent card state before/after reported). For a destructive write tool, this side-effect disclosure is valuable context. It doesn't cover rollback or reversibility, but with only a 3-param schema and moderate complexity, this is solid.

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?

Three sentences, clearly front-loaded with the core action, then team variant, then side-effect and read-back. Zero filler, every clause carries meaning.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, resolution semantics, team behavior, read-back, and the parent-card side-effect. It doesn't explain error cases or permissions, but given the moderate complexity and the rich sibling context, it's nearly complete. Missing per-team caveats or condition of 'initial state' are minor.

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 67% – the schema covers 'team' and 'state' param semantics (state: 'State name or id', team: 'Team whose team state to set'), but not 'id'. The description adds meaning to 'state' (resolved by name or id against card's own project workflow) and adds the team nuance (sets team's state on card, or project workflow when team has none). It partially compensates for the gap on 'id' by clarifying resolution context, but doesn't explicitly document 'id' semantics beyond schema. Given substantial added meaning, 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a card to a state'), and explains resolution against the card's own project workflow, distinguishing it from siblings like write_update_card or write_assign. It also adds a team-specific behavior (team sub-workflow or project workflow) that makes its purpose unique and concrete.

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 when to use it: to set/move a card's state, with team variant for team states. It doesn't explicitly name a when-not or alternative (e.g., write_update_card for other card updates), but the semantic clarity of 'move to state by name or id' plus the team sub-workflow guidance provides clear context. Lacks explicit exclusions, hence 4 rather than 5.

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