move_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'move' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to task metadata during movement, if the operation is reversible, or any rate limits. The description lacks crucial context about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information or decorative phrasing.

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 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (25%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the move, error conditions, board/column validation, or how 'task_text' identifies tasks. The context demands more comprehensive guidance than provided.

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 only 25% (only 'board_name' has a description), leaving 3 parameters undocumented. The description mentions 'from one column to another' which hints at 'from_column' and 'to_column', but doesn't explain what constitutes valid column names, format requirements, or the relationship between 'task_text' and existing tasks. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 resource ('task') with specific direction ('from one column to another'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_task' or 'get_board_content' which also involve tasks, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_task' or 'create_board'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing boards/columns), error conditions, or typical workflows where task movement is appropriate versus other operations.

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