Move items

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail: 'Cycles are rejected before any move,' which is a safety guarantee beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, partial failure handling, or permission requirements, so the added value is moderate.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence focuses on a critical edge case. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a single-parameter tool with a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core action and the most important constraint (cycle rejection). It could be more complete by explaining behavior on partial failure or whether multiple moves are atomic, but the essential information for calling the tool correctly is present.

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% and already documents the moves array structure, requiring taskId and exactly one destination (projectId, parentTaskId, or moveToInbox=true). The description's mention of 'project, parent task, or the Inbox' essentially restates these destination options, adding little semantic value beyond the schema. The cycle-rejection note is behavioral, not parameter-specific.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('tasks') and lists destination types ('project, parent task, or the Inbox'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_task, edit_item, or remove_items, which handle create/edit/delete operations. The additional note about cycle rejection further specifies behavior.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like edit_item or duplicate_items. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over others. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'move'.

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