todoist_project_move_to_parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and two outcomes, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., impact on sub-projects), authorization requirements, or error conditions. The behavior is partially clear but lacks important details for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence captures the core action, the second provides context. 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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks information about return values, effect on project children, or prerequisite checks. It is adequate for a simple operation but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds minimal new meaning beyond schema, only rephrasing the parent_id's use in the first sentence. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('project'), and clearly distinguishes between moving to become a sub-project or to root level. It differentiates from other project operations like create or archive, and from task move tools by focusing on project 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?

The description states 'Useful for organizing project hierarchies,' which implies the context of use, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., updating a project's parent directly) or provide conditions when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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