Add an existing task file to a specified board column by providing its task ID and column name.
Add an existing task file to this board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task | |
| columnName | Yes | Column to add the task to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add,' implying mutation, but does not describe whether the task file is modified, whether it must already exist, what happens on conflict, or whether the operation is reversible.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'this board' is slightly imprecise without saying which project root or board context applies.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits side effects, prerequisites, and expected outcome. The schema covers parameters, but behavioral and usage context needed for safe invocation is missing.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no extra parameter context, which is acceptable for this coverage level.
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 identifies a specific action (add) and resource (existing task file) with the target being the current board. It distinguishes itself from create_task by noting the file already exists, though it does not fully differentiate from move/import siblings.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_task, add_untracked_task, or move_simple_task_to_board. 'Existing task file' implies a precondition, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.