kanbn_promote_simple_task

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the conversion without explaining side effects: whether the simple task is removed, whether a file is created or overwritten, or whether the action is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutating promotion tool.

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 states the core purpose immediately and earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, while the description leaves important context unresolved: what counts as a simple task versus a real task file, where the task is created, and what happens to the original simple task after promotion. An agent would need additional domain knowledge to call this correctly with confidence.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description (project root path, title to match, optional column). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Convert') and a clear resource ('a simple task' into 'a real task file'), which separates this from sibling simple-task operations like get, move, or delete. It is clear enough to identify the promotion action, though 'real task file' is somewhat domain-specific.

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 implies the tool is for when a simple task should become a full task file, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_task or edit_task, nor does it give exclusions. There is enough implicit context for a basic call, but no explicit routing to alternatives.

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