card_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clarifies the move scope but says nothing about required permissions, side effects (activity log, notifications), reversibility, or whether position defaults when omitted — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the usage trigger leads and the differentiation clause follows. Appropriately sized for the scope.

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?

Covers the main move scenarios but, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks permission requirements, side-effect disclosure, and behavior when only cardId is supplied. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 schema already documents cardId, listId, boardId, and pos. The description confirms the list/board/position intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb (moving) and resource (a card), plus the three scope variants: another list, another board, or a different position. It distinguishes itself from general metadata updates, though it names the sibling card_update only obliquely and never mentions card_position_set.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when…' trigger and draws a clear line against metadata updates, so the agent knows the context. However, it doesn't address the closely related card_position_set sibling, leaving a routing ambiguity it could have closed.

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