move_card_to_iteration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool returns the updated card, which gives a basic idea of behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the card is removed from a previous iteration, what happens if the card already belongs to the iteration, or any required permissions.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, two for parameters, one for return. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameter hints, and return value. It is missing potential edge cases (e.g., duplicate move) but is mostly complete for its complexity.

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?

Both parameters are described beyond the schema: card_ref includes an example ('ON-914'), and iteration_id explains how to find it using another tool. This adds significant meaning given the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Move a card into an iteration (sprint)') and the resource ('card'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'move_card' by specifying the target as an iteration, a different concept than moving to another board column.

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 explicit guidance on how to obtain the iteration_id by using list_iterations(). This helps the agent know a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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