move_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'live' in the title, indicating the operation is immediate, and mentions dry_run for preview. It also notes that the return includes a 'backup_id' or a dry-run preview, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the operation is reversible, if it affects other cards' indices, or if it requires specific permissions). The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 well-structured. It starts with a one-line summary, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with a return description. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff, but it could be slightly more compact by integrating the return description into the summary.

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 tool has 6 parameters, all optional, and an output schema. The description covers the parameters and return value, but given the complexity of reordering cards (e.g., what happens to indices, how sections work), it could be more complete. It doesn't explain the behavior of indices (e.g., whether new_index is relative or absolute, if it shifts other cards). The output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the description could add more context on the operation's effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each parameter in the Args section: url_path, view, card_index, new_index, section, and dry_run. It clarifies that section is required for sections views and that dry_run previews without saving. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. However, it doesn't provide examples or edge cases, so it's adequate but not exceptional.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Reorder a card within a dashboard view (live)'. It specifies the action (reorder) and the resource (card within a dashboard view), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_card, update_card, and remove_card. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it's not 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 description provides some usage context by listing parameters and noting that 'section' is required for sections views, and that dry_run previews without saving. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update_card instead) or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied through the parameter descriptions but not explicit.

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