Copy a card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates copied fields, states what does NOT copy (comments, activity, 'waiting on' links), explains cross-board label remapping (same name, or new label in same colour), and declares the return value { id, boardId } plus the new card number. Only missing piece is any permission/auth note, which is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rules, then return value. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'Position works like kanbini_move_card' explanation plus the worked example is slightly repetitive.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers copy semantics, exclusion rules, ordering semantics, card addressing, and the return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is only 50% (id, title, toListId undocumented), but the description compensates: it explains that `id` accepts a card id or a number like `#142` paired with `boardId`, that `title` overrides the copied title, and it restates beforeId/afterId as strictly above/below the copy. This adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Make a copy of a card') and states the scope ('in any list, on this board or another one'), which separates it from kanbini_create_card and kanbini_move_card. The enumeration of what is copied makes the operation's exact semantics unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance for the optional parameters: use beforeId/afterId for placement, omit both for end of list, and 'to put the copy right under the original, pass the original as beforeId'. It also explains when boardId is needed (only when naming a card by number). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with kanbini_create_card as an alternative.

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