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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the card is moved to the end of the destination column and is constrained to the same board. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover all potential side effects (e.g., permissions).

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential information (verb, object, destination, placement) without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 simple move tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the key placement behavior and board constraint, and with no output schema required, no further return-value details are needed. The schema covers parameter semantics and the password requirement.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a descriptive comment. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'column' as destination is already self-evident from schema). Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb and resource: 'Move a card to another column on the same board, at the end of that column.' It precisely defines the scope (same board) and destination position (end), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_card or delete_card.

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?

The description implies usage by specifying the operation (move to another column) and placement (end), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_card or create_card, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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