b24_scrum_task_move

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that b24_task_update's STAGE_ID is accepted but ineffective, and describes this tool as 'board-aware write'. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, so the description adds useful nuance.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose, usage guidance, and a real-world observation. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the key behavior and alternative, though it doesn't detail return values (output schema likely covers that).

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool moves a task to a column on a Scrum sprint board, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool b24_task_update by noting that b24_task_update's STAGE_ID does not actually move the card on the board.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool instead of b24_task_update's STAGE_ID for tasks in active sprints, and explains the alternative's failure mode, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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