Mover uma tarefa para outro projeto

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

Despite annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: moving a recurrent task moves the whole series by default, and moving only the instance causes it to revert to the old project. This goes beyond annotation hints. It does not discuss permissions or other side effects, but the disclosure is strong.

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 the core action in the first sentence and the critical recurrent caveat in the second. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 move operation, the description covers the primary function and the most important edge case. It lacks explicit return-value or error details, but no output schema exists and the tool's scope is narrow, making this adequate. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent can invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with complete descriptions, including onlyThis's purpose. The description essentially recaps the onlyThis semantics in prose without adding new parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 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 opens with 'Muda a tarefa de projeto', clearly identifying the action (move) and resource (task project). It distinguishes itself from siblings like task_assign or task_update by focusing specifically on changing project and adding recurrence behavior, which no other tool mentions.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool, especially the default behavior for recurrent tasks and the onlyThis parameter to override it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like task_update.

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