move_card_to_list

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 only states that the card is moved, without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as it gives the agent no information about potential impacts or constraints beyond the basic action.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action: 'Move a card to a different list.' The second sentence adds a usage framing ('change the status') but is somewhat redundant; still, it is brief and earns its place by reinforcing the semantic intent.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention response behavior, prerequisites, or any side effects like card position reset. The complete schema helps but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 already provides 100% coverage of all parameters, including descriptions for cardId, listId, fields, and detailLevel. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not elevate it.

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 a specific action: 'Move a card to a different list.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_card, create_card, and move_all_cards by specifying the single-card move operation. The second sentence reinforces the purpose by linking it to changing card status.

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 clear context: 'Use this tool to change the status of a card.' This implies the tool is appropriate when moving a card between lists. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., versus move_all_cards for bulk operations), so it misses a full 5.

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