cos_task_reposition

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'MD frontmatter + sync', which reveals side effects beyond the annotation. However, it fails to disclose WIP enforcement or the role of the bypass_wip parameter, and the 'sync' behavior is vague. It adds some value but not substantial behavioral context.

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 10-word sentence, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word contributes: 'Update', 'Scrumban status and/or swimlane', and the parenthetical about MD frontmatter and sync. No fluff.

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?

With six parameters and no parameter descriptions, the tool is under-specified. Even though an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain what happens when 'to' is empty, what 'agent_session' is for, or how the WIP bypass works. The lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only hints at 'status and/or swimlane' but does not explain what 'to' maps to, what 'reason' means, or how 'bypass_wip' affects execution. The parameter names in the schema are not self-explanatory, and the description doesn't clarify them.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Update Scrumban status and/or swimlane'. It differentiates from siblings like cos_task_move and cos_task_edit by focusing on status/swimlane rather than general editing or moving, and the parenthetical 'MD frontmatter + sync' adds implementation detail.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to cos_task_move or cos_task_edit. Users are left to infer usage solely from the name and brief description.

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