Taskmaster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions moving tasks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing positions), requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid IDs), or affects related data like dependencies. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in practice.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'from' and 'to' ID formats in more detail or clarifying interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 or subtask') with the specific outcome ('to a new position'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_task' or 'update_task' by focusing on positional changes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'add_subtask' or 'scope_up_task' that also affect task hierarchy.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for reordering tasks within a list, moving subtasks between parent tasks, or how it differs from 'update_task' for status changes or 'scope_up_task' for hierarchical adjustments. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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