task_move

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

With no annotations, description discloses idempotency (returns noChange), side effects (reparents, sets syncPending), and response format. It lacks auth/permission info but is otherwise thorough 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?

Six sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then guidelines, then details. Every sentence provides unique value; no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description includes return format details. Covers all essential behavioral aspects for a moderate-complexity tool with three destination types. No annotations, yet description is comprehensive.

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 has 100% coverage. Description adds 'Exactly one destination must be specified: projectId, parentId, or toInbox: true,' reinforcing mutual exclusivity beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Move an OmniFocus task to a new location — a different project, another task (as a subtask), or the inbox.' This is a specific verb-action with resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like task_reorder and task_update.

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?

Explicitly says 'Do NOT use task_move to reorder siblings within the same parent (task_reorder handles that); prefer task_update when you only need to change editable fields, not reparent.' This provides clear when-not-to-use and alternative tools.

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