move_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Confirmation message') and explains the effect of each parameter, but it lacks explicit statements about side effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutating operation, this is adequate 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?

The description opens with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a structured Args list that adds value without fluff. Every sentence is purposeful, and the format is easy to scan.

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 description covers the core functionality, all parameters, and the return value, making it complete for a tool of this complexity. It does not discuss edge cases or failure modes, but these are not necessary for basic invocation, so it earns a 4.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description includes an explicit Args section that explains the meaning and purpose of all six parameters, including optional ones like 'parent' and 'destination_task_list.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantics.

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 action ('Move a task') with the resource ('task') and clearly defines the scope: 'to a different position or parent within the same list, or to a different list.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_task' or 'create_task' by focusing exclusively on repositioning tasks.

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 indicates when to use the tool: to move a task within or between lists, including repositioning as a subtask or sibling. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state 'when not to use,' but the context is clear enough for basic selection, so it earns a 4.

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