set_task_hierarchy

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'WRITE' prefix and 'replaces or clears' do convey the core mutation behavior and the domain of the hierarchy 'single explicit parent'. However, it omits permissions/security implications (despite set_task_security siblings), reversibility/undo behavior, and what happens to existing children when the parent is cleared. It adds meaningful context, but a mutation of this surface area needs more behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence with an upfront 'WRITE' marker and a dense but exact statement of both behaviors. Every word earns its place — the role enum values are compressed, the parent operation is encoded as 'replaces or clears', and there is no repetition of schema field names or annotation data. It is short yet complete at the level it attempts.

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?

Given high complexity, 7 nullable parameters, 2 required IDs, no annotations, no output schema, and a request with 31 overlapping siblings, the description is not complete enough. It never addresses what taskId and projectId mean together, how parentTaskId differs from parentProjectId, why agent exists, or what happens when both parent and clearParent are set. Agents are forced to reason about the required-value semantics and error surface entirely on their own.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and partially does: 'exploration/goal/project/task role' directly maps the kind enum, and 'replaces or clears' maps to parentTaskId, parentProjectId, and clearParent. It does not clarify the semantics of the two required fields taskId and projectId (how they coexist), the meaning of agent, or the precedence between clearParent and a supplied parentTaskId. Meaningful value added beyond the schema, but several parameter relations stay unresolved.

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 ('Assigns'), names a clear resource (the hierarchy role: exploration/goal/project/task), and adds the distinct parent relationship semantic of 'replaces or clears'. The WRITE prefix and focus on a 'single explicit parent' distinguish it from read siblings like get_task_hierarchy and from relationship tools like relate_task or add_task_link, though it does not name those siblings explicitly. Not a 5 because it never states what it does NOT do or names the overlapping set_* tools it competes with.

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 context ('assigns a role', 'optionally replaces or clears the parent') but provides no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives. With 31 siblings including promote_exploration, relate_task, add_task_link, and set_task_lifecycle, an agent receives no explicit routing away from those overlapping tools. The usage context is inferable but never stated, landing at 'no guidance' rather than 'implied usage'.

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