Verschiebt eine Karte in eine andere Spalte (des gleichen Boards). "position" oben oder unten (Standard unten). Damit kannst du Karten dorthin schieben, wo sie hingehoeren.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| column | Yes | Zielspalte: Name oder Spalten-ID | |
| card_id | Yes | ||
| position | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add the constraint 'des gleichen Boards' (same board) and the default for position, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
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 two concise sentences in German, front-loaded with the action verb and immediately clarifying the key constraints. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.
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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavioral points: moving within same board, position semantics, and a usage rationale. It does not mention return values, but for such a straightforward operation the description is largely complete when combined with the schema.
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 only 33% (only column is described). The description adds meaning for 'position' by explaining top/bottom and default bottom, which the schema does not. However, it does not clarify 'card_id' beyond the name, and 'column' is already described in the schema. It partially compensates for the low coverage.
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 tool moves a card to another column within the same board, using the specific verb 'Verschiebt' (moves) and resource 'Karte' (card). This distinguishes it from move_board and update_card by specifying the scope (same board) and the action (column change).
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 implicitly suggests usage ('Damit kannst du Karten dorthin schieben, wo sie hingehoeren') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like update_card, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It gives a general purpose but lacks explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (board, column, card, tracker, field, entry) with no overlapping purposes. Even closely related operations like add_card vs add_entry operate on different entity types.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_board, add_card, delete_entry, update_tracker). The mix of 'create' for top-level entities and 'add' for sub-entities is a minor deviation but still predictable.
24 tools is somewhat high but well-justified given the server covers two resource families (boards and trackers) with full lifecycle operations. Each tool has a clear role in the overall surface.
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD coverage for boards, columns, cards, trackers, and entries. The main gap is the lack of an update_field tool, but this can be worked around by deleting and recreating fields.