sprint_move_task

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that user confirmation is required ('Требует подтверждения пользователя'), which is a critical interaction requirement not visible in the schema or annotations. The annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns with those. The idempotentHint=true annotation is not contradicted by the description, though the description doesn't elaborate on idempotency behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core action, the source of stage IDs, and the confirmation requirement. Every element earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a mutating operation with a well-defined schema and output schema. It covers the action, the parameter source, and the confirmation requirement. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from task_move_stage, which is a sibling tool that appears to serve a similar purpose. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is a minor omission.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds the key semantic detail that stage_id values come from sprint_board, which helps the agent understand the parameter's source. However, it doesn't add detail about task_id or sprint_id beyond what the schema provides, so the added value is modest.

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 ('Перенести' = move) and resource ('задачу на другую стадию канбана спринта' = task to another sprint kanban stage), which clearly distinguishes it from generic task operations. It also references sprint_board for stage IDs, adding useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling task_move_stage, which appears to be a closely related alternative.

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 context by mentioning that stage IDs come from sprint_board, which tells the agent where to find a required parameter. It also notes that user confirmation is required, which is a usage constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus task_move_stage or other task-related tools, leaving the selection logic partially to inference.

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