dida365_move_taskMove a task between projects by specifying the task ID and source/destination project IDs. Relocate tasks to organize your Dida365/TickTick workflow.
Move a task between projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| to_project_id | Yes | ||
| from_project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the task is removed from the source project, what happens if task_id is not in from_project_id, or how errors are surfaced.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, so it is structurally clean. However, for a three-parameter mutation tool the brevity reads as under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Even so, for a mutation tool with three required, fully undocumented parameters, the description leaves key operational questions unanswered.
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 0% and the description supplies no meaning for any of the three parameters. The phrase 'between projects' only loosely implies the from/to pairing that the parameter names already convey, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Move) and resource (task) plus the scope of the operation (between projects), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as dida365_update_task, which could plausibly also relocate a task.
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?
No guidance on when to use this rather than dida365_update_task (which may also change a task's project) or when-not to use it. No prerequisites or preconditions stated despite all three parameters being required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.