タスクの移動・並べ替え

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state the primary behavior ('変える' - change) and the three parameter-specific effects, which implies it is a write operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., removal from current list), reversibility, or permission requirements, leaving operational uncertainty.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then explains each parameter's role in one line. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or tangential content.

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 description covers the main functionality and parameter-driven behaviors, which is adequate given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage. However, it omits details about default behavior when destinationTasklist is omitted, error conditions, and the return value, and since there is no output schema or annotations, these gaps could confuse an agent in edge 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?

The schema descriptions already cover each parameter's meaning at 100% coverage, but the description adds interpretive value by explicitly linking parameters to outcomes: 'parent' for subtasking, 'previous' for ordering, and 'destinationTasklist' for moving to another list. This contextualization goes beyond the raw 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 states a specific action ('タスクの位置を変える' - change the position of a task) and lists three distinct movement mechanisms (subtask, reorder, move to another list). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update-task (field updates) and complete-task (status change), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (whenever a task's position needs changing) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent would have to infer the use case from the action description alone.

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