Moves a task to another Microsoft To Do list by copying its title, notes, dates, status, categories, and checklist, then deleting the original.
Move a task to another To Do list (copies title, notes, dates, importance, status, categories and checklist, then deletes the original). The task gets a new ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| to_list_ref | Yes | ||
| from_list_ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the copy-then-delete implementation, the exact fields preserved (title, notes, dates, importance, status, categories, checklist), and the side effect that the task gets a new ID. Missing only failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the target list doesn't exist or the task is not found).
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 compact sentences, zero filler, with the identifying operation front-loaded and the important side effects immediately after. Nothing repeats the name or annotations.
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 copy/delete semantics and new-ID side effect make the tool callable for the happy path, but with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no error or precondition information, an agent cannot tell what to expect on failure or how to construct valid list references.
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 description coverage is 0% for three required parameters, and the description never explains from_list_ref, to_list_ref, or task_id — not even whether refs are IDs or names, nor why the source list must be supplied. The description must compensate here and largely does not.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (move a task to another To Do list) and adds the crucial mechanism in parentheses: copy fields then delete the original. This makes it clearly distinct from todo_update_task, todo_delete_task, and todo_create_task without the agent opening any schema.
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 phrase 'Move a task to another To Do list' implies the use case, and the copy-then-delete note hints at why one would choose this over recreating the task manually. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. todo_update_task (which might also change lists) or when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.