ticktick_move_task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating it's a non-destructive, repeatable mutation. The description adds minimal context by specifying the action involves moving between projects/lists, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like permissions needed, effects on task metadata, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Move a task') and specifies the destination efficiently. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with three parameters), annotations cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent), and an output schema exists (not detailed here), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, error handling, or output expectations, leaving gaps for an agent to infer correct usage.

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 input schema's properties (task_id, from_project_id, to_project_id) are self-explanatory with titles and descriptions. The description mentions moving 'to a different project/list', aligning with the parameters but not adding significant meaning beyond what the schema implies. With one parameter object containing three fields, the baseline 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') and resource ('a task'), specifying the destination ('to a different project/list'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ticktick_update_task' by focusing on relocation rather than content modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'ticktick_create_task' or 'ticktick_delete_task' in terms of purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid project IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for moving subtasks), or comparisons to siblings like 'ticktick_update_task' for changing task properties instead of location. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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