move_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a mutation ('move'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if the move is reversible, what happens to task dependencies or attachments, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Move a task') and specifies the destination. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, 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 insufficient. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and details on return values or errors. Given the complexity of moving tasks across projects, more completeness is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'The ID of the task to move'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'project_id' and 'position' define the destination. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('task'), specifying the destination ('to a different project or position'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_project' (different resource) and 'move_task_to_bucket' (different destination type), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'update_task' which might also reposition tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to archived projects), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_task' for position changes within the same project. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

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