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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the required permission level and a real side effect (the author is notified unless they performed the move). It omits failure conditions and what happens to the post's existing board-scoped state, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by permission rules and side effects in descending priority. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers authorization, scope limits, and the notification side effect. Missing only return-value expectations and error behavior, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The 50% schema coverage leaves postId undocumented, and the description adds no parameter information at all. The gap is mitigated by both parameters being self-evident (a UUID post id and a slug whose schema description already points to list_boards), but the description does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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?

"Move a post into a board" is a specific verb+resource with the destination scope made explicit, which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like mod_pin_post, mod_delete_post, and update_post. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It gives the authorization context (admin, or moderator of the target board) and rules out a related use case by stating that moving a post out of its board is admin-only on the web and not exposed over MCP. It does not route to a named alternative tool, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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