Move card

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses real side effects an agent must know: the card keeps its ID, comments and content; moving a board cascades to everything inside it; and moving to a shared board makes the card visible to other people. These are non-obvious behavioral consequences that annotations cannot convey.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the parameter-driven behavioral detail. Every sentence carries information; the only slack is the slightly redundant 'Moves it the way drag and drop does' framing.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers placement rules, cascade behavior and visibility side effects. The main remaining gap is what the call returns or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid column on target board), which the agent must infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning: to_column_id places the card at the top of the column, and its absence routes the card to the Unsorted panel rather than leaving placement undefined. It also confirms to_board_id defaults to the same board. No format examples for IDs/URLs are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (move) and the exact resources handled: a card or a sub-board, to another board or into/out of a column. No sibling tool in the list performs relocation, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable from create/duplicate/trash operations.

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?

It states the two usage modes clearly: with to_column_id the card lands at the top of that column, without it the card lands in the target board's Unsorted panel. That is an explicit when-to-use-each-parameter rule. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, which keeps it below a 5.

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