Move Card to Not Now

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the operation 'removes the card from workflow columns but keeps it accessible.' This clarifies that the tool mutates card placement without deleting the card. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but for this simple mutation the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral consequence follows directly. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 card-movement tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: destination, meaning, and effect on the card's location. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not clarify how the card can be restored or whether it remains visible in any default view, but these are minor gaps.

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 100%, and both parameters already have detailed descriptions in the input schema, including the distinction between card_number and card_id and how to obtain account_slug. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the 'Not Now' triage area') and explains the practical effect (removing from workflow columns while keeping it accessible). It is not a tautology and gives a concrete destination and outcome. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling fizzy_send_card_to_triage, so it falls just 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 phrase 'indicating it's not a current priority' gives an implied usage context, and the sibling list contains many card-movement tools. However, the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like fizzy_move_card_to_column or fizzy_send_card_to_triage, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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