othos_ticket_move

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions preserving certain fields, which is helpful, but lacks information on side effects, authentication needs, or failure modes.

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 (15 words) that front-loads the action and key details, with no extraneous information.

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 a move operation and lack of annotations/output schema, the description omits crucial context like prerequisites, success/error responses, and potential restrictions, making it incomplete.

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. The description does not explain any parameter beyond obvious names, providing no additional semantics for ticketId, targetColumnId, or targetOrder.

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 action (Move) and the resource (ticket), specifying what is preserved (title, description, priority, due date), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ticket_update or ticket_create.

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 implies the tool is for moving tickets, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or comparisons with ticket_update for changing columns).

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