move_cards

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

The description discloses that the target deck is auto-created, which is a notable behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify whether the move operation destroys the original card or copies it, nor does it mention any effects on scheduling or review data. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but falls short of full transparency.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose and auto-creation detail in the first sentence, and a practical usage note in the second. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more structured by separating the note into a clear usage guideline.

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 tool has two parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the core behavior but does not mention the output schema or potential errors such as invalid card IDs or permission issues. The existence of an output schema is not utilized in the description, leaving the return value unspecified.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond their names. It does not specify the format required for 'deck' or 'card_ids' (e.g., deck name string, integer list). The note about getting card IDs from other tools is helpful but does not directly augment the schema.

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 action (move cards) and the resource (to another deck), and includes the key detail that the target deck is created automatically if it does not exist. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_deck' or 'delete_notes'.

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 includes a helpful note about obtaining card IDs from 'find_cards' or the 'cards' field of 'find_notes', which guides proper usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_notes' or 'update_note_fields', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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