move_status

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

With no annotations, description bears full burden. It reveals it modifies multiple tasks but lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens to the original status, whether tasks maintain order, if it's reversible). Minimal behavioral 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, efficiently conveys the core action. Well-structured.

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 simple move operation, description is adequate but lacks details on behavior of original status, error conditions, and ordering. Without annotations or output schema, could be more complete. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions for Space and Organization but not for status_id or body_status_id. The description adds context that tasks are reassigned from one status to another, but doesn't detail parameter specifics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reassigns all tasks under one status to another status, using specific verb 'reassign' and resource 'tasks under this status'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_status or update_status.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions or context for when not to use it. Implied usage is minimal.

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