vk_post_tasks_f2d79f6a8a47

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required and that it's a raw REST proxy, but does not explain side effects of moving a task (e.g., reordering behavior), idempotency, or error outcomes. This is a mutation tool, so more detail on consequences would be expected.

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 fairly short but repeats 'Updates a task position' twice, which is unnecessary. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the repetition and slight clutter reduce conciseness.

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 that this is a raw proxy with no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains, but it does not. It also fails to clarify the requiredness of the 'id' parameter and contradicts the schema regarding the 'body' parameter. The tool is relatively simple, but these gaps make it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The description adds value by explaining that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases. However, it describes the body field as 'optional' while the schema lists it as required, creating a contradiction. The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, so the added value is moderate.

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 'Updates a task position', which is a specific action on a specific resource. It also names the exact endpoint (POST /tasks/{id}/position), distinguishing it from other task-related tools like vikunja_update_task.

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 usage through the endpoint and action, but does not explicitly state when to use this raw proxy versus the higher-level vikunja_update_task tool. It mentions authentication is required but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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