Set task status

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is write-oriented, destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or error handling, but it also does not contradict the annotations. The additional value over annotations is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the essential information (what the tool does and the allowed values) in the most efficient way possible.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient for a simple mutation tool. It does not clarify the return value or error behavior, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id and status), and the enum values are repeated in the description. No extra nuance or format details are added beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('a task') and enumerates the exact allowed statuses, making its purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_tasks and create_task.

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 tool name and description make the intended use obvious, and the sibling tool names (search_tasks, create_task) show a natural functional separation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, missing a 5.

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