task_move

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses eligibility constraints (draft/planned only), phase ordering invariant, an authorization requirement (planners only), and a mutual-exclusivity rule. It omits failure behavior and 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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying a distinct rule (what it does, target constraints, caller/argument constraints). The core action is front-loaded before the guardrails.

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 only a readOnlyHint, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavior and eligibility well but leaves the required `by` parameter and the return/error behavior undefined. An agent can attempt the call but may guess wrong on `by`.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains before/after semantics and their exclusivity, and id is inferable as the task being moved, but the required parameter `by` is never explained anywhere — a significant gap for a mandatory argument.

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+resource: changing execution order by placing a draft/planned task directly before or after another. This is clearly distinct from siblings like task_sort (bulk ordering) and task_update (field edits). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so no credit for direct differentiation.

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?

"Never in front of a task that is in flight or done, and phases stay ascending" gives explicit when-not conditions, and "Planners only; pass exactly one of before/after" states a prerequisite and a mutual-exclusivity rule. It's clear context but doesn't route the agent to an alternative tool when the target is in flight/done.

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