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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals important behavior: empty string list_id moves to backlog, position 0 is the BOTTOM because lists render top-down, and omitting position produces different defaults depending on the target list type. These are meaningful operational details that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Four sentences deliver the core action, board-type restriction, special value guidance, position orientation, and default-position rules with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers all invocation-critical details: allowed board type, rejected board type, special list_id value, position ordering, and default placement rules. An agent has enough information to select and call this tool correctly.

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 already documents id, list_id, and position thoroughly, including the empty-string backlog behavior and position semantics. The description largely restates this information rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a card to a different list (or change its position within the same list).' It also distinguishes the tool by limiting it to kanban boards and explicitly rejecting retrospective cards, making it clear how this differs from sibling tools like move_retro_item.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: moving cards on kanban boards, and explicit when-not: retrospective board cards are rejected. It also explains the backlog empty-string behavior. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for moving retrospective items, but the exclusion is clear enough for an agent to infer the boundary.

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