Transfer custom field to board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the transfer is a move or copy, what happens to the original custom field, any required permissions, or side effects. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about the operation's nature.

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 very short but not effectively concise—it repeats the tool name and HTTP path without providing structured or useful information. There is no front-loading of key details.

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 complexity of nested parameters and the presence of many sibling transfer tools, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the operation's effect, return value (no output schema), or how it differs from similar tools. The agent lacks essential context to use it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. The parameter names (e.g., 'id', 'project_id', 'boardId') are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not clarify their roles or constraints beyond what the schema defines.

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 is essentially a tautology, repeating the tool name and the HTTP path. It says 'Transfer custom field to board' which adds no new information beyond the name. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'weeek_transfer_custom_field_to_project' or 'weeek_transfer_custom_field_to_task_manager'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Sibling tools with similar purposes are not mentioned for comparison.

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