Move task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description needn't repeat that. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the mutation itself—e.g., what happens to subtasks or dependencies, or whether the move is reversible. Since annotations cover the key risk, a 3 is appropriate; the description is neutral and non-contradictory.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It immediately conveys the action and scope. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

While the schema documents all parameters, the description does not clarify that exactly one destination (inbox, project, or parent) must be specified, and that the target fields are mutually exclusive. This is a key usage constraint that an agent needs to know. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but this single-target expectation is missing. Given the tool's parameter complexity, the description is slightly under-specified.

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 all seven parameters are documented with their roles. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is correct given the high coverage; no additional clarification is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('move') with a clear resource ('existing task') and explicit destinations (project, parent task, inbox). This distinguishes it from siblings like batch_move_tasks (multiple tasks) and reorder_task (reordering within a list), though it doesn't name them directly. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies its usage—moving a single task—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over batch_move_tasks or reorder_task. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. Given the sibling list includes a batch variant, an agent would benefit from a note like 'for single-task moves, use this; for multiple, use batch_move_tasks.'

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