move_task_to_project

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

With no annotations, the definition carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the literal action and does not reveal side effects (e.g., details about the original project status, preservation of subtasks or assignees, reversibility) or permissions required. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It captures the essential purpose efficiently, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 tool is a mutation with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the necessity of column_id, the impact on the task's original project, or what the operation returns. This minimal information may lead an agent to make incorrect assumptions about side effects, especially given the absence of richer context.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all three required parameters (id, project_id, column_id). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Move a task to a different project' clearly states the action (move) and the target resource (task) with a specific scope (different project). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'move_task' tool, which likely refers to moving within a project, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_task', nor does it mention prerequisites such as user permissions or task/project access. The only implied usage is from the name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between similar task-moving tools.

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