move_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Automatically finds the source column' is a genuine behavioral disclosure, but for a mutation tool it omits permissions/auth requirements, what happens to the card's position ordering, failure modes, and whether the move is reversible. One useful trait among several required.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and the auto-detection note follows. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With a fully documented schema, no output schema, and four simple flat parameters, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, as a mutation with no annotations and no return-value contract, it leaves error behavior and side effects unspecified.

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 all four parameters (boardId, cardId, toColumnId, index) are already documented in the schema, including index's 0-based/default-to-end behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Move a card') plus the target scope ('to a different column'), so the action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like create_card or update_card. It stops short of naming or contrasting with any sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus update_card or assign_card, nor any prerequisites (e.g., card must exist, board/column must belong to the same board). The only inferable guidance is the implied fact that the caller need not supply a source column.

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