cos_task_move

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

The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not mention WIP limits, validation rules, side effects, or whether transitions are logged. Since annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation, the description adds minimal extra 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 redundancy, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior. While not verbose, it sacrifices needed detail for brevity.

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's five parameters and its role in a stateful process, the description is incomplete. It does not address required inputs, prerequisites, state constraints, or the meaning of the output schema.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It does not clarify that 'to' is the target state, what 'reason' is used for, or the role of 'bypass_wip' and 'agent_session'. This leaves parameter semantics almost entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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 uses the specific verb 'transition' and identifies the resource 'a task' and the system 'Scrumban state machine', making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like cos_task_reposition, which might also move tasks.

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 no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cos_task_ready, cos_task_wip_check, or cos_task_reposition. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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