move_task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and lists parameters but does not mention side effects (e.g., subtask handling), reversibility, or permission requirements.

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 relatively short and front-loaded, but the Args block repeats information already in the schema, which could be omitted. Still, it is concise overall.

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 basic usage but lacks clarity on parameter constraints (e.g., whether project_id, section_id, parent_id are mutually exclusive or optional) and assumes the user knows the implications of moving tasks.

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 Args block provides descriptions for each parameter, but they are essentially restatements of the parameter names (e.g., 'ID of the task to move'). This adds minimal value beyond the schema titles, especially since schema coverage is 0%.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'task', and lists specific targets (project, section, parent task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_task_by_name by focusing on ID-based movement.

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 mentions 'cross-project task organization' which implies when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like move_task_by_name. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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