tasks_move

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the subtree renumbering side effect and the full failure surface (unknown ids, sprints, self-subtree, MAX_DEPTH, same-parent without pos). It does not say what the caller gets back or whether renumbering breaks existing id references, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two compact clauses, with the action front-loaded and the error surface parenthetically packed. It is efficient, but the dense shorthand ('same parent without --pos') costs a little readability for an agent parsing the parameter name.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description covers the effective action, its side effect on ids, and the error conditions an agent must avoid. The main omission is what the tool returns (e.g. new id/path) and any permission or ordering caveats.

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 id, new_parent and pos are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only contributes the same-parent-without-pos constraint, and the '--pos' notation reads like a CLI flag rather than the 'pos' parameter name, adding mild ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 and resource ("Move an item to another parent") and adds the key side effect that the subtree is renumbered. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tasks_mv, which is likely the closest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical error list implies the preconditions (valid ids, non-sprint item, parent not inside own subtree, depth limit), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of tasks_mv when...' routing, and the sibling set contains an obviously overlapping tool that is never mentioned.

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