rank_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful consequence of the operation — rank drives list/board-column sort order and defines what agents pull first — which is real value beyond a bare 'update' verb. However, it says nothing about required permissions, what happens on invalid id or on concurrent rank changes, or what the call returns, which for an unannotated mutation is a notable gap.

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, both front-loaded: the operation first, then the argument contract, then the downstream effect. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what changes, how the new order is expressed, and why order matters. The remaining gap is failure/edge behavior (missing or conflicting positional argument, unknown id), which an agent would have to discover by trial.

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 would be 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic rule the schema does not encode: top, bottom, before and after are mutually exclusive and exactly one is expected. That constraint materially changes how an agent composes the call and is not inferable from the flat property list.

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 ('Reorder the queue'), anchors it to a known concept (Jira: Rank), and describes the observable effect — lists and board columns sort by rank. No sibling tool performs reordering, and the mention of queue/list/board ordering makes the scope unmistakable.

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?

The constraint 'Give exactly one of top, bottom, before or after' is a clear invocation rule an agent must follow, and 'agents take work from the top' explains why top matters. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. what happens if no positional argument is supplied, or when to prefer top over before), but there is no competing sibling to route away from.

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