Move Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the tool's mutating nature is known. The description adds the return value ('empty object {} on success'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details (e.g., error cases, dependencies on section membership) beyond the annotations, so the added value is moderate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action, second gives the return value and an alternative. Every word earns its place; no 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 simple reorder operation, the description provides all essential context: purpose, return behavior, and alternate tool for rename. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return type statement, and annotations cover the side-effect profile.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described, including mutual exclusivity of after_section and before_section. The description does not add further parameter-level nuance beyond restating the 'before or after' concept, so it meets the baseline but no more.

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 ('Reorder a section within a project') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from asana_update_section by explicitly noting the rename use case, preventing confusion among sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells users when to use this tool (reorder a section) and provides an alternative for a related but different operation ('To rename a section, use asana_update_section'), which is strong guidance.

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