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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious side effects: entering a done column completes the task and awards XP, and moving out clears the completion mark. It omits permission/rate-limit details but the side-effect disclosure is substantive.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the side-effect clause and the return hint. 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?

With no output schema, the description does address the return value ('the reply says which happened') and discloses the completion/XP behavior. It leaves some gaps (permissions, what other card state changes) but is largely complete for a mutation of 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines card_id, to_column_id, and to_index (with '0 = top'). The description reinforces that to_column_id may equal the current column and to_index controls position, but adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is warranted.

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 card') and clarifies the two modes: cross-column moves and same-column repositioning. This clearly separates it from reorder_kanban_columns (columns) and update_kanban_card (field edits), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies ('another column, or another position in the same one'), which is the primary usage condition. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g. use update_kanban_card to edit fields instead), so no exclusions are stated.

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