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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call; the description adds genuine context on top: which action classes will be refused and where the owner must do them instead. It also explains the idempotency mechanism (the move keys on the card, so it never runs twice), which is more precise than the bare idempotentHint flag.

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 dense sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler; the refusal rule is packed efficiently into one comma-delimited clause. The jargon load makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but nothing is redundant.

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?

The description covers eligibility and idempotency well for a mutation tool, which is the critical information. But with no output schema, it says nothing about what comes back after the move runs (result, status, or the refusal payload shape), leaving the agent guessing about the response.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: action_type is explained as the card's action type with a concrete example (create_draft), and idempotency_key reuse on retry is spelled out. suggestion_id gets no explanation beyond its name and UUID format, which is the remaining gap.

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: it executes a Sergio card's move immediately, mirroring the card's own "Run this now" control. An agent can distinguish it from accept_suggestion and dismiss_suggestion, though the proprietary terms "Sergio card" and "move" are never defined.

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 real exclusion rules: moves that send, move money, open to the public or grant access are refused, and outside-system writes are not available to agents. However, it never routes the agent to a sibling (accept_suggestion, dismiss_suggestion) for those cases, so the alternative path is left to inference.

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