Move a simple task to another column on a Kanbn board by matching its title, specifying the target column, and optionally setting its position.
Move a simple task to another column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| input | Yes | Title to match | |
| column | Yes | Column to move the simple task into | |
| position | No | Position within the target column |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Move a simple task to another column' and gives no information about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or whether the operation mutates files or board state. As a mutating operation, this is a significant lack of behavioral transparency.
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, concise sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It earns its place but is arguably too sparse to serve as complete guidance for a mutating tool with multiple sibling alternatives.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not define 'simple task', explain when to choose this over 'kanbn_move_task', or describe what the caller should expect after a successful move. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral and selection context is incomplete.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating the purpose; it does not explain the relationship between 'input', 'column', 'position', and 'path' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the load.
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 states a specific action ('Move') and resource ('a simple task') with a clear destination ('another column'), which makes the core purpose understandable. It distinguishes from 'kanbn_move_simple_task_to_board' by specifying a column rather than a board, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'kanbn_move_task' or clarify what counts as a 'simple task'.
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 phrase 'simple task' weakly implies this tool is for simple tasks rather than regular tasks, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus 'kanbn_move_task', 'kanbn_move_simple_task_to_board', or other sibling tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.