Move Task to Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the task is moved, but does not disclose whether this is destructive (removes from old project), whether it returns anything, or what happens if the old project ID is invalid. The verb 'move' implies a transfer, but no explicit behavioral details are provided.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and is immediately understandable. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

Despite the low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimal. It does not mention the return value, side effects, or any prerequisites. Since there are no annotations, the description should provide more context about what happens during the move, but it does not. This leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (Task ID to move, Destination project ID, Current project ID). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to, as the schema already fully documents the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 from one project to another.' It uses a specific verb (move), names the resource (task), and describes the scope (between projects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task or move_task_to_column, which have different purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over update_task or set_task_parent. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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