move_projectMove a project into a folder or to the top level, and optionally position it before another project by specifying target IDs.
Move a project into a folder (null = top level), optionally placing it before another project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| beforeId | No | Place before this project id. | |
| folderId | Yes | Target folder id, or null for no folder. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics — null folder means top level, and the move can position the project relative to another. It says nothing about permission requirements or side effects on ordering of neighbouring projects.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the optional capability trailing; no filler, nothing redundant.
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 three-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. Only permission/prerequisite context is missing, which is minor at this complexity.
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 100%, so both folderId's null semantics and beforeId's meaning are already documented in the schema; the description's parenthetical largely restates the folderId description. Baseline 3 applies — it adds no syntax, ID-format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 project') plus the target container ('into a folder'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update_project, which could also touch project metadata, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the mechanics of the sentence; there is no statement of when to prefer this over update_project or a reorder tool, and no prerequisites (e.g. folder must exist, project must belong to the caller).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.