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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond that: the change is applied immediately with no preview, and the parent becomes a summary whose dates and progress are derived from its subtasks. It also discloses the write-permission requirement. What it omits is failure behavior — what happens if the task is the first on its level or already the last subtask.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by consequences and the no-preview warning. Semicolons do the work of separating effects; no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, structural effect, derived-data behavior, and immediacy of the change — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that it does not say what the call returns (e.g., updated task tree or just confirmation), which an agent might need for chaining.

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 100%, including a detailed enumeration of accepted task reference formats (key, uuid, wbs, exact name, ref), so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'the task', which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 and resource (indent a task) and pins down the exact semantics: the task becomes the last subtask of the item directly above it at the same level, mirroring Tab in MS Project. That phrasing implicitly contrasts with outdent_task (Shift+Tab), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening a 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?

Usage is implied through the MS Project Tab analogy, giving the agent a clear mental model of when this is the right operation. However, it never names the reverse tool (planitude_outdent_task) as the counter-operation, nor does it state preconditions such as 'the task must not be first at its level' — an edge case an agent will actually hit.

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