Moves a task to a different column for status changes, validating allowed transitions and optionally inserting it before another task. Invalid transitions are rejected with the permitted columns.
把任务移到另一列（状态流转）。流转合法性由配置 board.transitions 决定，非法流转会报错并列出该列允许的目标。before_task_id 可指定插到某任务之前。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | 操作者标识，默认 agent | |
| task_id | Yes | 任务 id（必填） | |
| to_column | Yes | 目标列 id（必填） | |
| before_task_id | No | 插到这个任务之前，省略则追加到列尾 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: illegal transitions raise an error and enumerate the allowed target columns, and ordering is controlled by before_task_id (append to column tail if omitted). It still omits permission/auth requirements and reversibility, so not a 5.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveats (transition legality, ordering) follow in priority order.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main surprise behaviors (validation failure mode, ordering control), which is what an agent most needs. Missing only auth/permission context and any note on side effects, so it stops short of fully self-sufficient.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including the append-vs-insert default for before_task_id). The description restates the before_task_id semantics without adding new syntax, format, or constraint detail, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('把任务移到另一列') and adds the conceptual framing (状态流转) so the agent knows this is a status/column transition, not a generic edit. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_task, which a sibling-savvy agent might assume can also change columns, so it falls short of the top tier.
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?
Usage is implied by the column-transition framing, and the description usefully notes the transition-legality gate (board.transitions), but it never states when to prefer this over update_task or any other sibling, nor any preconditions. Adequate but with clear routing gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.