weeek_set_task_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the operation is a mutation (nests/detaches) and explains the null-parent semantics, but doesn't state consequences like whether children get orphaned, whether reordering conflicts with existing after/before placements, or any auth/permission requirements. Adequate but not rich.

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 front-loading the core purpose (nest/detach) and appending the sibling-placement detail. Efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief explicit usage note.

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 covers the primary behaviors but omits edge cases (after+before conflict, effects on existing subtrees, whether it implicitly moves across projects). Given 4 parameters and 2 required, it's minimally complete but leaves meaningful gaps for 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 75%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds meaning to parent_id (null makes it top-level) and after/before (placement among new siblings). However, it doesn't clarify interactions—e.g., what happens if both after and before are set, or whether after/before are relative to new or old siblings. Some value added over the schema.

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 nested (nest a task under another one) or detach with parent_id null, plus placement among siblings via after/before. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes the parent-setting action from sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with weeek_move_task, which shares overlapping positioning semantics.

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 it (setting/changing a task's parent and ordering among siblings) but doesn't name alternatives or give explicit exclusions. The relationship to weeek_move_task (which likely also handles ordering) is unclear, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this tool over moving.

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