ticktick_move_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details return values, error cases (not_found, error), and the edge case where the target project cannot be looked up locally (move still attempted). Project name resolution behavior is also clearly explained, covering case-insensitivity, trimming, Inbox resolution, and ambiguity errors. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 well-organized with a one-line summary, Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence adds value: parameter details, behavior, error handling, and a concrete example. No redundancy or fluff; the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 two-parameter move tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter semantics, return format, failure modes, and an example. It is complete even without relying on the output schema, and the explicit return behavior gives the agent full confidence in invoking the tool.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), only parameter names and types. The description adds rich meaning: task_id is the full ID, new_project_id accepts either ID or name with specific matching rules and error conditions. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Move a task into a different project.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, complete, or delete. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to move a task to another project) and provides detailed behavioral guidelines for the new_project_id parameter (name resolution, case-insensitivity, Inbox handling, ambiguity errors). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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