Move card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the REST endpoint, which usefully reveals that target_stack_id must live on the same board_id and that this is a reorder operation, but it does not disclose what happens to the ordering of other cards in the source or target stack, nor the response shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action and destination, followed by the endpoint for reference; no filler. The raw URL line is compact and informative rather than redundant, though it could have been used to explain the parameter roles explicitly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the core action and the endpoint contract but omits return behavior, reordering side effects on sibling cards, and validation constraints. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, incomplete for edge cases.

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 carry the burden; it clarifies only the non-obvious parameter, 'order', as the position within the target stack. The remaining three ids are self-descriptive by name and their roles are reinforced by the URL template (board -> stack -> card), but zero-indexing, out-of-range behavior, and negative values for 'order' remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move one card to a stack (column) of the board') plus the destination position, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like nextcloud_update_card or nextcloud_create_card. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for non-move card edits, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of nextcloud_update_card (which could plausibly also relocate a card) or nextcloud_list_stacks to find a target stack id. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sentence, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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