Переместить карточку

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden for a mutating operation. It does not say whether the card must already exist, whether permission on both source and target board is needed, whether the move triggers notifications or reorders siblings, or what a failed/partial move does.

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, zero filler, with the action and destinations front-loaded. Nothing in the text is redundant with the title beyond what is needed.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain the return value and, critically, that only card_id is required even though a move requires at least one target. The description leaves both points unaddressed.

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 100%, so the four params are already documented. The description restates the same three targets (column/lane/board) without adding semantics – notably it never explains how they combine or which are valid together, which is the one gap the schema leaves.

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 plus the three possible destinations: "Перемещает карточку в другую колонку/дорожку/на другую доску". The note that it is a convenience wrapper over update implicitly separates it from kaiten_update_card, though the differentiation is not spelled out.

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?

Use is implied by "обёртка над update" – an agent can infer this is the narrow move operation versus the general update – but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative or exclusion.

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