move_tasks

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 tool moves tasks, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the move is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on task dependencies), or rate limits. 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 extremely concise—just two sentences—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical constraint, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), detailed parameter usage, and expected outcomes, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 crucial semantic information beyond the input schema: it clarifies that exactly one of parent_id, section_id, or project_id must be provided, which isn't evident from the schema alone. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested array), this compensation is valuable, though it doesn't fully explain the 'items' array structure or individual field purposes.

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 tasks') and target ('to a different parent or section in Todoist'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'move_projects' or 'update_tasks' which might handle similar operations on different resources.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by specifying that exactly one of parent_id, section_id, or project_id must be provided, which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_tasks' or 'move_projects', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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