move_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state-changing operation (moving a ticket) but doesn't state whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the ticket's position if omitted, whether position is relative to existing tickets, or whether any side effects (e.g., timestamps, notifications) occur.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. Could add a sentence of guidance but is not verbose.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. Given all three structured fields are empty of help, the description must do very heavy lifting, and a single sentence is insufficient. It doesn't cover position semantics, status values, return behavior, or error conditions.

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 clarifies that 'status' refers to a column and that 'position' is optional, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema (which has no descriptions). However, it doesn't explain the semantics of 'position' (e.g., is it 0-indexed, does it mean 'between' existing items), and 'status' values (expected strings, valid column names) remain undocumented.

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') plus a clear resource ('ticket') and states the action (move to a new column/status and optional position). It's clear and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling update_ticket, which could also touch status, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of update_ticket or create_ticket. Both update_ticket and move_ticket could conceivably modify status, and no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage (moving a ticket to a fresh column) but never excludes alternatives.

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