move_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that valid values depend on the project but does not reveal side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what the tool returns. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns after the move, how to discover valid status/priority values for a project, and any error conditions. The agent cannot fully understand the contract without additional context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the valid-values note already present in the status and priority parameter descriptions, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on 'itemId' or 'projectNumber' further.

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 action ('Move an activity to a different status and optionally set its priority') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'update_activity' (which could update other fields) and 'create_activity', making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_activity' might also change status). The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to determine valid status/priority values, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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