Move a task

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey: the column-lookup fallback chain (target board vs. the task's current board) and the first-column default when only `board` is supplied.

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?

Three tightly-packed sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and then the resolution rules; every sentence carries information. It is dense but not padded, with only mild redundancy around the name/alias/id forms.

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?

There is no output schema, and for a move operation the description covers the tricky parts (column resolution, board fallback, first-column default, and where the column policy lives). What the call returns and any permission requirements are left unstated, which is the remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that `column` is resolved on the target board and that `board` alone implies the first column. The name/alias/id forms are largely duplicated from the schema, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Moves a task') plus the scope of the move ('to another column and/or board'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like weeek_update_task (field edits) and weeek_get_task (read). An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It states clear operational context: how the target column is resolved, what happens when only `board` is given, and it routes the agent to weeek_context for the conventions on which columns may be used. It lacks an explicit negative case (e.g. when not to move vs. update), so it falls short of a full 5.

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