Hang a task under another, let it go, or put it in a list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses authorization scope, mutation effects, and important constraints: one-level nesting, closed tasks taking nothing, and completed/not-doing wholes taking no new parts. It does not describe return values or error handling, but it is substantially more transparent than average for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loads access scope before explaining the two operations and constraints. The phrasing is dense and domain-specific, but every sentence adds relevant information without 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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important context: who can use it, what the parameters do, and key edge cases. It lacks detail on return behavior and parameter interaction, but is otherwise complete enough to support correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially the one-level rule and the distinction between agent-filed and person-filed tasks for `list`, making the parameters clearer in context.

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 clearly states the tool’s operations: `part_of` hangs a task under another or detaches it, and `list` moves an agent-filed task to a better list. It is specific about the resource and effects, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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?

It gives clear usage context, including that the task must be one the agent may work on, and it specifies restrictions such as one-level nesting and closed-task behavior. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like `attach` or `plan`, but the conditions and exclusions are well stated.

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