move_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation (moving changes hierarchy) but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the move is reversible, effects on child projects/tasks, or error conditions (e.g., invalid parent). No rate limits, side effects, or response format are mentioned, leaving significant gaps for a tool that alters project structure.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or effects on related data (e.g., child tasks). Given the complexity of moving projects in a hierarchy, more context on constraints and outcomes is needed to adequately guide an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (projectId, parent_project_id, position). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters relate to moving in hierarchy. It doesn't explain semantics like 'position' ordering (0-based vs 1-based) or special cases (null for root), so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 project'), specifying the change in hierarchy ('to a different parent or position'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_task' by focusing on projects rather than tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_project' which might also handle parent changes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_project' (which might handle parent changes) or 'create_project' (for new projects). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the project ID or valid parent IDs, and doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-hierarchical changes).

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