Send Card to Triage

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating the card is removed from its current column, which clarifies that this is a move operation. It doesn't contradict annotations, and for a simple move operation this is adequate, though richer detail about permissions or side effects is absent.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core behavior, and then gives the intended use case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description is largely complete. It explains what happens, why to use it, and when. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on how this differs from fizzy_move_card_to_column, but the use-case phrase 'reassess or reprioritize' compensates for most of that ambiguity.

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%, so the parameters card_number and account_slug are already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but no compensation is needed because the schema is complete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send a card back to the triage area' and explains the mechanism ('by removing it from its current column'). It clearly conveys that this is a move/relocation operation, not a delete or close. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fizzy_move_card_to_column, but the triage-specific framing makes the purpose clear.

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 intended usage: 'Use this to reassess or reprioritize cards that need more planning.' This gives an agent a clear condition for selecting this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives such as fizzy_move_card_to_column.

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