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

The annotations declare non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description needn't repeat those. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints: only user-added columns can be renamed, system columns keep their names, and no plain column can move ahead of the Inbox. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the constraint detail is strong. Slightly less than 5 because it doesn't mention partial update behavior or what happens if both label and toIndex are omitted.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loads the purpose, then constraints, then the alternative tool. No repetition or 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?

Given annotations cover safety and idempotency, schema covers parameters fully, and no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, constraints, alternative tool, and return ('Returns the column'). Missing only a note on what happens if both label and toIndex are provided (though schema implies both can be used), but overall complete for an update tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples and edge cases (out-of-range values go to end). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb+resource ('rename one of their own columns or put a column in a different position') and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from move_card explicitly and from other column operations.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to rename... or move a column') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use to move cards — use move_card'). It also names the alternative tool and states the constraints on which columns can be renamed and the Inbox restriction.

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