Transition a work card

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to mutate but not destroy. The description adds valuable semantics beyond annotations: moving to 'doing' claims the card for the actor, 'done' requires evidence it ran (not a commit). This adds protocol-level behavioral context that annotations alone don't 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then targeted clarifications on the most semantically-loaded statuses (doing, review, done). No wasted words. Could arguably be even tighter, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (8 statuses, 5 params) with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage. The description covers the key conceptual distinctions (claim semantics, verification requirement, evidence standard). The mutating-but-not-destructive profile is clear, and the complexity is well addressed for an agent selecting transitions.

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 status enum and parameter descriptions are complete. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: it clarifies the claim-on-doing behavior and the evidence requirement for 'done', which enrich what the enum descriptions alone convey. The description reinforces but doesn't restate the full enum.

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 target (''another protocol status'). It names what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like project_card_claim, project_card_release, or project_card_reopen, though the status-enum and claim semantics provide implicit differentiation.

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 clarifies nuanced semantics of moving to 'doing', 'review', and 'done' (claiming for actor, verification, evidence-of-run). It gives implicit context but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like project_card_claim/release, nor state exclusions. Sibling differentiation is implied through status semantics rather than stated.

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