tasks_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of 'parent' and 'previous' parameters but does not mention side effects (e.g., what happens to subtasks when a parent is changed), permissions, or edge cases. The minimal behavioral detail is insufficient for a 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently explains the two non-obvious parameters. There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description remains thin for a hierarchical reorder operation. It does not discuss moving tasks between tasklists, handling subtask orphans, or prerequisites. The core behavior is covered, but edge cases and integration with other task tools are omitted, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'parent' (make it a subtask) and 'previous' (position after another task), which are not self-explanatory. However, it does not explain 'tasklist_id' or the required 'task_id', though 'task_id' is obvious from the name. This partial coverage justifies a middle score.

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 function with 'Move/reorder a task' and explains the key parameters for making a task a subtask or positioning it after another. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_update, which handles property updates rather than reordering.

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 when to use this tool (when needing to reorder or change hierarchy), but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as tasks_update or tasks_list. It lacks explicit 'use when' or 'use instead of' guidance, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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