asana_move_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the key safety traits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself—no mention of side effects, permissions, or consequences. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not add the kind of useful behavioral detail (e.g., impact on tasks, required scopes) that would elevate this score.

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: a single functional sentence followed by a brief contextual note about why the tool exists. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant filler. The second sentence adds a small amount of context about the tool's necessity, slightly reducing perfection but remaining efficient.

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?

For a simple two-parameter operation with full schema coverage and annotations indicating safety (non-destructive, idempotent), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does and the parameters are well-documented. It lacks explicit usage guidance and output details, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, so this is not a major gap.

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%, with both 'task_gid' and 'section_gid' each having a clear description ('Task GID to move' and 'Target section GID'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Move a task to a different section within its project'), clearly identifying the resource (task) and the target (section). It distinguishes itself from siblings like asana_reorder_section (reordering sections) and asana_bulk_move_section (bulk operations), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Fixes: no MCP tool for section moves,' which hints at its purpose but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be better suited in certain scenarios.

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