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

The annotations are weak (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and the description merely restates the core mutation without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects on the source board, atomicity, permissions, or error conditions beyond what the operation name itself implies.

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 wasted words. It states the action and the object 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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks guidance on selecting this tool over nearby siblings and provides no behavioral caveats. It is enough to understand the operation, but not enough to fully contextualize 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions ('Idea ID', 'Destination board ID'), so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds little beyond the word 'different board', which is marginally useful but not a significant enrichment.

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 clear action ('Move') and a specific resource ('an idea') to a different board. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like idea_add or idea_remove, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'move' — an agent can infer it should be used when relocating an idea between boards. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like idea_add + idea_remove.

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