things_move_item

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: write permission and latest revision requirements, descendantImpact return semantics, changed-ID counts, and the caveat that counts describe exposed fields rather than every inherited effect. This goes well beyond the structured hints and contains no contradictions.

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 dense but not bloated. The main operation is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct, useful constraint: destination limits, return impact details, permissions, and non-effects. There is no filler.

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 complex mutation tool with nested oneOf destinations, four required parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the full move matrix, unsupported cases, permission/revision requirements, return behavior, and explicit non-effects. The output schema can carry remaining return-format details, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does meaningfully: it explains valid target/destination combinations, detach semantics, list restrictions, and the need for the latest revision via expectedRevision. It does not elaborate on requestId, leaving the schema's UUID format to carry that parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Move a to-do to a project or area, a project to an area, detach a parent, or move a to-do to Inbox, Today, Anytime, or Someday.' It enumerates supported move kinds, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from update, schedule, and trash siblings.

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 strong usage context by explicitly listing unavailable moves ('Project Anytime and direct Logbook moves are unavailable') and what it does not do ('Does not reorder items, address headings, or restore Trash'). However, it never names sibling tools such as things_update_item or things_schedule_item as alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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