move_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious behavioral trait: an approval step may gate the move. It still omits required permissions, what happens on approval failure, and whether the move is atomic, so the behavioral picture is incomplete but not empty.

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?

Two short sentences, action front-loaded before the caveat, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. The description does not convey enough for an agent to invoke it confidently, particularly around placement semantics and the approval workflow.

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 0% and none of the three required parameters are described. The purpose sentence implicitly maps taskId and toColumnId, but 'position' (an integer index for placement) is never explained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (move), resource (task), and destination (another column), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling update_task, which could plausibly also change a task's column, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_task or the other task-mutating siblings. 'Approval may be required' hints at a precondition but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice or what triggers the approval path.

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