move_task

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing the native-API move, omission semantics for parent_id/previous_id, the cross-list restriction on repeating tasks, and that returned IDs should be reused. It does not mention permissions, error modes, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; each sentence carries real information (move, omission semantics, constraint, ID reuse). The closing "Use IDs returned by this call" is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but the overall structure is tight.

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?

Output schema and annotations already cover return values and safety, so the description needn't repeat them. For a 5-parameter mutation with low schema coverage, it leaves gaps: it does not explicitly distinguish source list from destination list, nor describe what happens when parent_id/previous_id are supplied together with a destination list. Adequate but incomplete.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate; it explains omission behavior for parent_id and previous_id and gestures at destination_list_id via "optionally to another list." However, it never clarifies that task_list_id is the source list, nor the interaction between destination_list_id and parent_id/previous_id, leaving key semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move ... optionally to another list") and adds the implementation directive "Never copy then delete," which implicitly steers the agent away from using delete_task/create_task. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling tool such as update_task, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Provides clear context: omitting parent_id moves to the top level, omitting previous_id places the task first, and repeating tasks cannot move between lists (an explicit when-not constraint). It does not spell out alternatives by name or describe prerequisites/permissions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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