Move Card

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The only added nuance is 'potentially on a different board' which is somewhat useful but minimal.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words, front-loading the key action.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. It is adequate for understanding the basic function but not fully complete for an agent to select confidently among siblings.

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?

All three parameters (cardId, listId, boardId) have descriptions in the schema, so the description need not add detail. It doesn't mention parameter behavior beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a card') with clear scope ('to a different list, potentially on a different board'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_card_to_list or archive_card.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention the relationship to add_card_to_list or note scenarios requiring boardId.

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