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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the substantive consequences: following same-level tasks become subtasks, an emptied summary reverts to a normal task with its prior dates, and the mutation happens with no preview. Those are exactly the side effects an agent must know before invoking a destructive outline change, and none are derivable from the annotations.

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 behavioral consequence is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (reversibility of summaries, immediacy, permissions). The MS Project parenthetical is a small detour but earns its place as a grounding reference.

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 destructive outline mutation with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, side effects, and timing. It leaves minor gaps: what is returned, and whether outdenting a top-level task or a task already at root level errors out.

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%, so the schema already documents both projectId and the flexible task identifier formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the operation itself, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Moves the task out one level, right after its summary" gives a specific verb (moves), a specific operation (outdent), and a precise resulting position, which clearly separates it from planitude_indent_task. It stops short of naming the sibling tool directly, but the directionality makes the distinction 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?

The description supplies clear operating context: the MS Project keyboard equivalent (Shift+Tab), the write-permission precondition, and the fact that changes apply immediately with no preview. It does not state when-not to use it or name indent_task as the inverse operation, so it falls short of an explicit alternatives section.

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