Favro MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool moves a card and returns updated details, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the move is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., triggers workflows), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the main description for better flow.

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 has an output schema (returns updated card details), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it should provide more guidance on usage and effects. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but overall completeness is minimal viable.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'card' can be an ID, sequential ID, or name; 'column' is the target ID or name; and 'board' is needed for name lookups. This clarifies parameter formats and dependencies, compensating well for the schema gap.

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 action ('Move a card') and target ('to a different column'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_card' or 'delete_card'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_column', which moves columns rather than cards, so it's not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_card' (which might also move cards) or 'assign_card' (which might involve similar operations). It mentions that 'board' is needed for name lookups, but this is parameter-specific rather than usage context.

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