move_card

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the core mutation and the ordering behavior, but it does not disclose what happens to existing card positions, whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, or 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes to the core semantics, making it easy to parse.

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 five-required-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a near-identical sibling (bulk_move_cards), the description is too thin. It omits usage guidance, side-effect details, and how this tool differs from related operations.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that issue_numbers are GitHub issue numbers and that column_id is the destination column, but it does not clarify the role of project_id or the owner/repo relationship beyond their parameter names.

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 clear action on a specific resource: move one or more issues (cards) into a column, with ordering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling bulk_move_cards, which appears to cover the same multi-card operation.

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 about when to use move_card versus alternatives such as bulk_move_cards or add_issues_to_project. The description implies a column-targeting move, but an agent cannot tell which sibling is appropriate without additional context.

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