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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation costs no credits and by spelling out the exact authentication paths (OAuth or Authorization: Bearer acd_live_…). The annotations cover the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds cost and auth context without contradicting them.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then stacks behavioral facts (no credits, sign-in) in a logical order. The auth instructions are verbose but necessary and clearly delineated; little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. With scope, cost, and auth covered, the definition is nearly complete, though an explicit sibling trade-off (arrange_cards vs move_cards) is the remaining gap.

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 the schema already explains moves, position, revision, and canvas_id, including the omitted-position fallback. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 one or more cards to new positions on a board') and clarifies scope by explaining that new card creation is handled by the server, not this tool. It does not name the closest siblings (arrange_cards, update_card) so an agent must still infer the boundary between repositioning and re-arranging.

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?

Implies usage context ('this is for the board view's drag') and rules out using it for new cards, but never states when to choose it over arrange_cards or update_card. No explicit when-not conditions are given.

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