Reorder a Google Task, change its parent task, or transfer it to another task list in Google Tasks.
Reorder a task, change its parent, or move it to another task list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Google task ID; obtain it from list_tasks | |
| task_list_id | Yes | Google task list ID; obtain it from list_task_lists | |
| parent_task_id | No | ||
| previous_task_id | No | ||
| destination_task_list_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scope of three move modes, but does not disclose what a move destroys (e.g., whether previous_task_id ordering is lost on list change), nor any permission or rate-limit context.
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?
One short sentence that front-loads the three capabilities. No padding, no repetition.
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 5-param destructive mutation tool with no output schema and 60% of params undocumented, the description is too thin. It should explain how the optional params combine (parent vs previous vs destination) to produce the three advertised behaviors.
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%. The three optional params (parent_task_id, previous_task_id, destination_task_list_id) have no schema descriptions, and the description does not explain their semantics or interactions - e.g., that previous_task_id controls ordering and destination_task_list_id triggers cross-list moves. The description's three verbs loosely map to these params but add no real clarification.
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) and enumerates the three actions it performs: reorder, reparent, move lists. It distinguishes itself from sibling update_task by framing the operation as a move rather than a general field update, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like update_task, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that reparenting/reordering belongs here rather than in update_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.