Set Parent For Task

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the updated task object and explicitly explains that setting parent to null promotes a subtask to top-level. This goes beyond what annotations provide and aligns with them, with no contradictions.

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 at three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core action, then covers optional positioning, then explains removal behavior. No redundant information or fluff.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: conversion, optional positioning, null removal, and return value. It does not mention preconditions like the task needing to exist or the parent being a task, but the schema and annotations carry much of the burden. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for most agent use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by framing insert_after/insert_before as controlling 'the subtask's position among its siblings' and reinforcing the null-parent removal behavior. This provides a higher-level understanding that the schema's individual descriptions don't fully convey.

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 specific action: 'Convert a task into a subtask by assigning it a parent task.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like asana_create_subtask (which creates new subtasks) by focusing on converting an existing task. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to assign a parent to an existing task, optionally control placement among siblings, or remove a parent by setting it to null. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the wording implies the distinction from create_subtask and makes the use case clear. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement but is more than sufficient.

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