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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds useful scope by noting that sub-boards can be moved and that column moves are supported, but it does not explain side effects such as removal from the source position, ordering, or permission requirements.

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 communicates the action and scope efficiently.

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 four-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the core action and movement scope adequately. Some behavioral detail is absent, but the annotations and schema provide the safety and parameter context needed to invoke it.

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%, and the schema documents all four parameters including defaults and the fact that to_column_id places the card at the top. The description adds only a general mapping to board/column movement, not syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 or a sub-board' to a board or column. The purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as duplicate_board, trash_cards, or restore_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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention required conditions for moving a card or when another sibling tool should be used instead.

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