kaiten_move_card

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds only the operational hint that valid IDs are required, implying failure on bad IDs, but says nothing about repositioning side effects, cross-board moves, or error behavior. Adequate but thin against an already-covered annotation set.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite. No filler, every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a 4-parameter move operation the description covers purpose, targets and ID sourcing; only edge-case behavior (invalid IDs, already-in-position cards, reordering effects) is unstated.

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 0%, so the bare integer fields would otherwise be opaque. The description maps all four parameters to concepts (a card plus an explicit board, column and lane), which is meaningful compensation. It still omits constraints such as the positive-integer requirement, but the semantic mapping is the key information the schema lacks.

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 (Move) and resource (card) and names the three target coordinates (board, column, lane), so an agent understands the operation without opening the schema. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the transform-style siblings like kaiten_update_card, which could also reposition a 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?

"Obtain valid target IDs using the navigation tools" gives concrete prerequisite guidance, effectively routing the agent to kaiten_list_boards / kaiten_list_columns / kaiten_list_lanes before calling. It stops short of an explicit when-not or an alternative such as update_card, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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