move_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a move but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwriting existing parent relationships), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Move a projects') and destination. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), parameter meanings, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions moving projects without detailing parameters. The input schema defines an 'items' array with id, name, and parent_id, but the description adds no semantic context about these fields, such as that parent_id can be null for root-level moves. Baseline 3 is given as it minimally addresses the tool's purpose without parameter specifics.

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 action ('Move') and resource ('projects'), specifying the destination ('to a different parent in Todoist'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_tasks by focusing on projects rather than tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_projects or create_projects for restructuring projects. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing existing projects and parent IDs, or when moving is appropriate versus deletion/recreation.

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