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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical behavioral details beyond structured fields: moving to another board drops the old board's labels and removes assignees/watchers who cannot see the new board. It also clarifies positioning behavior (index 0 = top, default end). This is exactly the kind of destructive side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 that begins with the core action and then layers on scoping, positioning, and destructive consequences. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive move operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: same-board vs cross-board moves, position handling, and the label/assignee/watcher fallout. Annotations already confirm the destructive nature, and the description supplies the 'what gets destroyed' detail that annotations alone cannot.

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 coverage is 67% (index and listId have descriptions; cardId does not). The description mirrors the schema's index semantics ('index 0 = top') and implies cardId is the task being moved, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this coverage level.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Moves a task to another list') and immediately scopes the operation into two clear modes: same board with optional position, or another board. This is precise enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like update_task or sort_list without needing to name 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: moving a task to another list, either within the same board or to another board the user can edit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., update_task for field edits), so it falls short of a 5.

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