move_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavior: content is not modified, which is valuable. However, it does not describe potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the from_section does not match the task's current section. The core behavior of moving is clear, but additional transparency would improve the score.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, scope, and an important constraint. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or repetition. It is highly concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It does not mention return values, failure modes, or the exact mapping of section names (the example conflicts with the enum values). The description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent selecting this tool.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It uses the example 'Active to Completed' but the schema enums are 'Tasks' and 'Completed Tasks', creating potential confusion. It does not explain the meaning of from_section and to_section beyond their names, nor clarify that from_section should reflect the current section and to_section the destination. Description adds little semantic value over the schema.

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 ('task') and scope ('between sections'), and explicitly excludes content modification, distinguishing it from update_task. The example 'Active to Completed' provides a concrete use case. This fully clarifies what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (moving a task between sections) and the constraint 'without modifying content' implies a distinction from update_task. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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