wb_cards_move_nm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the 30-nmID limit and the merge/split conditional behavior, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to source cards after the operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation and packs the max limit and conditional behavior without filler. The Russian parenthetical is slightly redundant but does not add noise.

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 mutation, the description is mostly usable, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits return behavior, error conditions, and consequences for the original cards. An agent can invoke the basic operation but cannot fully anticipate the outcome.

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 schema only documents target_imt, leaving nm_ids undescribed, and schema coverage is 50%. The description adds the 30-nmID cap and clarifies the target_imt conditional, but it does not fully explain the semantics of nm_ids beyond the tool name and merge/split context.

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 names a specific operation ('Merge/split cards') and a specific resource (cards), and adds the batch cap of 30 nmID plus the conditional target_imt behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_cards_update or wb_cards_move_to_trash.

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 explicit invocation logic: setting target_imt merges into that imtID, omitting it splits. This is clear context for when and how to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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