Move a task, subtask, or sprint item to a new parent, optionally at a specific position, and automatically renumbers the affected subtree.
Move an item to another parent (renumbers the subtree).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id: sprint '1', task '1.2', subtask '1.2.3' | |
| pos | No | 1-based position (default: append last) | |
| new_parent | Yes | New parent id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the subtree is renumbered, a non-obvious side effect. It still omits what happens to displaced siblings, failure modes, 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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key caveat in parentheses. No waste, nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable: the renumbering side effect is covered. It falls short on sibling differentiation (tasks_move) and on error/edge-case behavior for a tree-restructuring operation, which matters for correct invocation.
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 100%, including the dotted-id convention and the 1-based 'pos' with append default, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'renumbers the subtree' hints that 'pos' shifts sibling positions but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Move an item to another parent') plus the scope of side effects ('renumbers the subtree'). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'tasks_move', which an agent could easily confuse with this one given the near-identical name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many siblings, most notably tasks_move and tasks_edit, which overlap in intent. No prerequisites, no exclusions (e.g., moving an item under its own descendant), nothing to route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.