Rename a task on a Kanbn board by providing its ID and a new name, with optional column move.
Rename an existing task on the Kanbn board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| column | No | Optional column to move the task into after renaming | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to rename | |
| newName | Yes | New task title | |
| position | No | Optional 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'rename an existing task,' giving no indication of error behavior, permissions, side effects, or how optional column/position parameters affect the result. Saying 'existing' is a minimal prerequisite signal but not enough.
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, focused sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it might have used the remaining space to mention the optional move-after-rename behavior without becoming wordy.
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?
This is a mutation tool with five parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description omits important context such as what happens when the task does not exist, how 'column' and 'position' interact with the rename, and what success or failure looks like. The schema covers the parameters, but operational context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and their purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 verb ('rename') and resource ('an existing task on the Kanbn board'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar kanbn_edit_task tool, which could presumably also change task names.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like kanbn_edit_task, kanbn_move_task, or kanbn_create_task. The phrase 'existing task' implies the task must already exist, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.