Move task

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds a non-obvious behavioral constraint: recurring tasks cannot be moved between lists. It also clarifies that omitting parentTaskId moves a task to top level. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and helps avoid failed calls.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core operations. Every sentence adds value: the first lists capabilities, the second explains a key parameter behavior, and the third warns about a limitation. No filler or redundancy.

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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation types and important edge cases (recurring tasks, top-level behavior). It does not detail interactions between 'list' and 'toList' parameters, but the schema handles those descriptions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 each parameter having a meaningful description. The description adds one semantic nuance (omit parentTaskId for top level) which is already present in the schema. Since the schema carries the full parameter burden, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'Reorder a task, nest it under a parent, un-nest it, or move it to another list.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task (which updates fields) and complete_task (which changes status). The phrase 'move_task' is directly explained and expanded upon.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool by enumerating its operations (reorder, nest, un-nest, move across lists). It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Recurring tasks cannot be moved between lists.' However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_task or list_tasks, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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