move_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or limitations (e.g., whether it ignores position if not specified). This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the primary action clearly, the second provides a concrete example. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 description covers the core action adequately for a simple move operation. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the moved card object), which could be useful for an agent. Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it restates the purpose but does not clarify parameter values like 'pos' enum or 'cardId' format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), resource (card), destination (list), and provides a concrete workflow status change example. It distinguishes from sibling 'update_card' by specifying moving to a different list as the primary purpose.

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 gives a clear use case ('change a card's workflow status'), making it easy to know when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_card' which might also change list along with other fields.

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