Move a task from one TickTick or Dida365 project to another by specifying the task ID and source/destination project IDs.
Moves a task from one project to another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task id | |
| toProjectId | Yes | Destination project id, or "inbox" | |
| fromProjectId | Yes | Current project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It does not say whether the move preserves task metadata, whether 'inbox' behaves as a special destination (only the schema hints at this), what permissions are required, or whether the move is reversible.
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 tight sentence with the verb and both endpoints front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as a structure/concision matter it is efficient.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits side effects, permission needs, and what happens to the task's other fields on relocation. The fully documented schema covers inputs but not the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a write.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'inbox' special value. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (moves) and resource (task) with the scope of the operation (one project to another). It is unambiguous, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from update_task. The agent must infer that this is the dedicated relocation path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.