Move Kanban Item

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the Status-field prerequisite, but says nothing beyond that about auth requirements, error behavior, or what happens if the item/target column doesn't exist.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No wasted text; slightly more could be said about the move's side effects.

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 an output schema present and 83% parameter coverage, the description only needs to cover behavior; it does state the key prerequisite. It's marginally light on what happens on failure, but adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 83%, so the schema already documents repo, owner, item_id, target_status, and project_number. The description repeats the 'status column' concept but adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema's own examples. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move a Kanban item') plus the target ('different status column'), which distinguishes it from sibling add_kanban_item and delete_kanban_item by name. The purpose is clear even though it doesn't explicitly call out the siblings.

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?

Adds a real precondition — 'Requires the project board to have a Status field' — but gives no guidance on when to use this versus get_kanban_board or add_kanban_item, and no note on failure modes when the prerequisite isn't met. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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