tasks_move

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the effects of 'parent' and 'previous' parameters. However, it omits side effects of moving (e.g., changes to task order), behavior when optional parameters are omitted, and whether this is a destructive operation. It adds some behavioral context but not enough to be fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Move/reorder a task') and then explains parameter semantics. Every sentence provides value without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description still leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the default behavior of omitted optional parameters, the role of tasklist_id, or how the movement interacts with task lists. Given the bare schema, the description should provide more context to be considered complete, but it only addresses the two lateral parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains 'parent' and 'previous' but leaves 'task_id' and especially 'tasklist_id' (with a default of '@default') unexplained. An agent would not know the full range of values or the effect of omitting optional parameters. The description covers about half the parameters, which is insufficient given the complete absence of schema descriptions.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Move/reorder a task.' It also explains the two key positional parameters (parent, previous), which distinguishes it from other task operations like tasks_update or tasks_create. This directly addresses what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 usage: you use this tool when needing to move or reorder a task, and it explains that setting parent creates a subtask, previous positions after another task. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like tasks_update for field modifications. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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