Move Card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic mutation but does not mention permissions required, whether card contents like labels and members are preserved, whether the move is reversible, or how position is applied. This is a notable gap 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and both possible destinations efficiently, which is appropriately sized for a simple card move tool.

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?

The schema provides complete parameter documentation, but the description is thin overall. It lacks output expectations, error cases, and any behavioral cautions, and there is no output schema or annotations to compensate. For a low-complexity tool it may barely suffice, but more context would help an agent avoid mistakes when moving cards across boards.

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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds only a slight clarification that the board change is optional, which is already implied by the schema's 'if moving across boards' note. It provides no meaningful extra parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('move') on a specific resource ('a card') with explicit destinations: 'to a different list, and optionally to a different board.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like update_card and archive_card, and the singular 'a card' distinguishes it from move_all_cards.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention move_all_cards for bulk moves, move_list_to_board for board-level moves, or any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implicit in the action described.

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