move_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that there is no dedicated endpoint, that the operation costs two requests on v1 vs one on v2, and that labels, assignees, comments, relations, dates, and `identifier` are carried over or reassigned. It does not describe response or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose and permission, implementation and cost, side effects and identifier reassignment. It is dense, front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value.

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 two simple parameters are operationally covered well, but with no output schema the description omits what the call returns. It also only mentions write access to the target, saying nothing about whether source-project or task write access is also required. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutating operation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that `project_id` is the writable field whose value performs the move and that the target project needs write access. `task_id` is not elaborated, though its role as the task being moved is clear from context and naming.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Move a task to another project." The implementation note — setting the writable `project_id` is the move — clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `update_task` and `move_task_to_bucket`.

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 first sentence establishes the clear use case, and the write-access prerequisite tells the agent when it can run. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, such as using `move_task_to_bucket` for board-level moves, so it stops short of a 5.

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