weeek_set_task_parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the mutation's two outcomes (attach as subtask vs. re-parent to top level via null), which is more than a bare 'set parent' would convey. It is silent on permission requirements, error behavior for invalid/cyclic parents, and what happens to existing subtasks of the re-parented task.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, front-loading the primary action and then the null-case escape hatch. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, but for a two-parameter setter the description covers both the write and the detach semantics adequately. Minor gaps remain around permissions and invalid-parent behavior, so an agent has enough to call it correctly but not full situational awareness.

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%, but the description fully explains the non-obvious parameter: `parent` takes a task id, or null to detach. The `id` parameter is only implied ('a WEEEK task') rather than described as the task being moved. This compensates for most, but not all, of the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination: making a WEEEK task a subtask of a given parent, plus the inverse detach operation. An agent knows exactly what state change this produces. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the nearest siblings (weeek_move_task, weeek_update_task), so it stops short of a 5.

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 implicitly covers both directions of use by explaining that parent:null detaches the task, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never says when to prefer this over weeek_move_task or weeek_update_task, nor states prerequisites such as the parent task needing to exist or be in a compatible project.

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