move_task

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

Substantially exceeds the annotations: it discloses a non-obvious side effect (auto-reassignment to the creator on 'review' unless assignee_id is supplied), the exact return contract ({task, new_status}), the lean field list, why assignee is always included, and what full=true changes. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and annotations cannot express.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the format constraint, then the side effect and return contract. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so explicitly, including the lean field set and the full=true alternative. Side effects and parameter interactions are all covered, so an agent can call this correctly without further reading.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds value: it clarifies the slug-vs-UUID requirement for status_slug and explains how assignee_id interacts with the auto-reassign rule and how full trades detail for payload size. This goes beyond the schema's one-line parameter descriptions.

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 and resource — 'Change task status' — with a concrete example of the transition semantics (todo → in_progress → done). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from siblings like update_task, assign_task, or release_task, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives a format directive ('Use status SLUGS (not UUIDs)') and a conditional behavior for the 'review' target, which implicitly tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it never says when to choose this over update_task or assign_task, nor any preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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