move_task_to_bucket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency ('re-sending the same bucket does nothing'), done-bucket toggling, repeating-task reopening, task-limit refusals, and the project-read-from-task request cost. This is unusually complete disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and idempotency note, uses bullet points for side effects, and every sentence adds relevant operational detail. Nothing is padded.

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 mutating kanban operation with no output schema or annotations, it covers action, side effects, mode restrictions, and request-cost behavior. The remaining gap is the role of the optional view_id and expected response/error shape, but the provided context is enough for safe invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful context about task_id (project is read from the task) and view (manual/filter mode), but it never explains the optional view_id parameter or how it is used, and bucket_id is only implied. The semantics are partially covered, not fully.

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 opening sentence 'Move a task into a kanban bucket' names a specific action and object, and the rest clarifies it is a column move with side effects. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling move_task tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only meaningful when the view's bucket_configuration_mode is manual, and states filter mode is not appropriate. It references list_kanban_views for mapping buckets, but doesn't name alternatives like move_task for other kinds of moves, so not a full 5.

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