Convert task to project

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

The description discloses useful non-obvious behavior: subtasks, tags, and notes are preserved, and a missing folder defaults the project to the library top level. But it leaves the fate of the original task ambiguous and does not discuss reversibility or error behavior; with all annotations false, the description carries this burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then preservation behavior and default placement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 covers all parameter semantics and an output schema exists, so the description plus schema give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main remaining gaps are an explicit alternative-routing rule and the ambiguous fate of the original task, which are minor at this complexity level.

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?

All five parameters already have full schema descriptions, so the description needs little compensation. It adds general context about folder default and preservation, but no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Promote') and resource ('an existing task into a full project'), and adds distinguishing preservation semantics (subtasks, tags, note). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_project or move_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 trigger condition is clear: use it when an existing task should become a full project. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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