Move a task to a section and/or reorder it within a project.
Result includes org + bound.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Override agent identity | |
| work_id | Yes | Work item UUID | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID | |
| section_id | No | Target section UUID | |
| sort_order | No | Fractional rank within section |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultRemoved value: -trueDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens when optional parameters like section_id or sort_order are omitted. The cryptic 'Result includes org + bound' adds little clarity.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary action stated in the first sentence. The second sentence about 'org + bound' is cryptic but not verbose; overall, the description is appropriately sized with no wasted words.
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?
With a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and absence of usage guidance or behavioral caveats leave some gaps for a mutation tool, especially regarding when to choose this over sibling tools.
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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond mentioning 'section' and 'reorder,' which map to section_id and sort_order, but it does not compensate or extend the schema's parameter explanations.
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 a task to a section and/or reorder it within a project') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like work_add_to_project and work_remove_from_project by its focus on moving/reordering, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a task needs to be moved to a section or reordered within a project. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better suited for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.