things_move_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely new context — that destination membership must be verified — but says nothing about side effects on the source container, permission requirements, or what happens on a retry.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. 'Verify destination membership' is terse to the point of being cryptic about who verifies and when, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers destination semantics, a prerequisite, and one sibling exclusion. It leaves the concurrency parameter and the post-move state of the task undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for a non-idempotent write.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full burden, and it does clarify that destinations are given by ID and that built-in lists (Inbox/Today/Anytime/Someday) are valid, which explains the kind enum meaningfully. However, expected_modified_at is left completely opaque — a concurrency token that an agent needs to understand to use safely.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Move a task') plus the full set of valid destinations, which maps directly onto the kind enum. The closing sentence 'Scheduling is separate' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling things_schedule_task, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

'Verify destination membership' states a prerequisite for use, and 'Scheduling is separate' tells the agent this is not the tool for time-based placement. It does not name an explicit alternative for adjacent operations (e.g. things_update_task) or spell out failure behavior, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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