Yougile Move Task

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

The description goes well beyond the single annotation (destructiveHint: false) by disclosing important behavioral traits: it explains that jumps over a workflow chain are rejected, that moving into a done column marks the task completed (recording the date), and moving out reopens it. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to predict side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each delivering distinct value: the core action, the workflow chain nuance, and the done/reopen behavior. No fluff or repetition. The most important information is front-loaded, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral complexities (workflow chain and status changes) but does not mention the 'confirm' parameter's role in client-facing projects, though the schema describes it. It also omits any mention of return values (no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, it is fairly complete, but the absence of a mention of the confirm flow is a minor gap.

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?

With schema coverage at 80%, most parameters are already described. The description adds meaningful context to the 'column' and 'task' parameters by explaining how the column is interpreted (walking through intermediates) and the completion/reopen effect. It does not add details for 'board' or 'confirm', but the schema already covers them. The added semantics are valuable and go beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Move a task to another column.' It goes beyond a simple verb+resource by explaining the workflow chain behavior and done/reopen semantics, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from yougile_update_task, the core action is so specific that an agent can easily identify this tool's role.

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 description provides context about workflow chains (referencing yougile_overview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like yougile_update_task or yougile_task. It implies you should check the overview first, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The behavioral context helps, but explicit alternatives are missing.

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