move_task_to_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes a task's board/column/swimlane location, implying a mutation, but does not state whether permissions are required, whether the move is reversible, what happens to existing task data on the source board, or how the task ID is resolved across boards.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently captures the core action and scope, though the parenthetical adds slight ambiguity without adding much value.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should disclose at least basic safety, permission, or side-effect information to help an agent invoke it correctly, especially given six parameters and cross-board semantics.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters (board_name, target_board_name, column_id, groupingDate). The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, and swimlane_id has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving a minor gap.

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 states a specific verb (move) and resource (task) with the scope (from one configured board to another), which is clear and distinguishable from siblings like update_task. It could be slightly stronger by contrasting with update_task, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-use-alternatives guidance. An agent could infer this is for cross-board moves, but there is no stated condition or warning about when to prefer update_task for in-board column changes.

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