Move Card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., card and list must exist), failure modes, or reversibility. The verb 'move' implies mutation, but that's minimal; an agent lacks information about what happens if the target list doesn't exist or if the card isn't found.

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 that states the action and its scope. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, earning its place by conveying the core purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe returns) and a simple 3-string-parameter schema, one might expect a compact description to be sufficient. However, the lack of annotations and absence of behavioral details (e.g., does it validate existence, does it move within the board only, what errors occur) makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without risk of failure. The description is too sparse for a mutation operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention any parameters at all. While the parameter names (board_name, card_name, target_list_name) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantics about their expected format, required identifiers, or how they relate. The agent must rely solely on names, which is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 verb 'move' applied to a 'card', with a specific destination ('different list on the same board'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_card, archive_card, and update_card, which have different actions. The phrasing is concise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: if you need to move a card to another list on the same board, use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the constraint 'same board' gives some context. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, so it falls short of a clear usage guide.

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