Batch move tasks

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Move' matches that destructive intent without contradicting it. The description adds the scope of the operation but does not disclose details like partial failure behavior, conflicts between destinations, or atomicity. With annotations carrying the destructive-safety signal, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, scope, and allowed destinations, making the tool's core purpose immediately clear.

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?

The schema and output schema cover a lot, but the description does not clarify an important cross-parameter constraint: whether exactly one destination must be specified and what happens if multiple target parameters are provided. Since only 'tasks' is required in the schema, an agent might invoke the tool without a destination and fail. This gap keeps the definition from being fully complete.

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 the parameter names and descriptions already explain each field. The description adds general destination types (project, parent task, inbox) that map onto the target parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 multiple tasks to a project, parent task, or inbox in a single operation.' It clearly scopes the tool to batch operation over multiple tasks, distinguishing it from the sibling move_task which handles a single 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?

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when moving multiple tasks at once. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'multiple tasks' and 'single operation' phrasing provides enough context to route an agent toward this tool for batch moves and away from single-task equivalents.

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