Reorders tasks within an epic by specifying their new sequence; tasks not listed are kept at the end.
Set the order of an epic's tasks. Omitted IDs keep their relative order at the end. task_list then follows this arrangement by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| epic_id | Yes | Parent epic | |
| ordered_ids | Yes | Task IDs, in order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: omitted IDs retain their relative order at the end, and task_list follows the arrangement by default. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two tightly written sentences deliver the core operation and the two most important behavioral details with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter reorder tool, the description covers the operation, the partial-ordering rule, and the downstream effect on task_list. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but those are not clearly necessary for correct invocation, given the simple schema.
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 goes beyond the schema by defining what happens to IDs not present in ordered_ids, which clarifies the array's partial-order semantics. It also ties epic_id to the epic scope.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the order of an epic's tasks.' This clearly identifies the operation and scope, and the distinction from subtask_reorder is implicit since it operates on epic tasks rather than subtasks.
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 the tool is used when an epic's tasks need a desired ordering and notes the downstream effect on task_list. However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like subtask_reorder or task_batch_update, nor does it provide any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.