move_cards

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

Annotations cover the safety/txn profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: preserves note/card IDs and scheduling, leaves sibling cards untouched, supports undo, duplicate retries skip already-moved cards, and unexpected source state aborts the entire batch. The all-or-nothing failure semantics are exactly what an agent needs before calling a batch mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the authorization caveat and the core action, then layered preconditions, invariants, and failure modes in dense but non-redundant sentences. No filler; every clause adds operational information.

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?

For a batch mutation with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers prerequisites, batching limits, invariants, idempotency, and abort semantics. An agent has everything needed to decide and call it correctly.

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 carry the load, and it does: expected_deck_id is framed as the source deck (with 'unexpected source state aborts the whole batch' implying a concurrency guard), deck_id as the destination, and card_ids as 1–500 selected card IDs. Only the exact units/format of card_ids remains implicit.

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+resource (move selected cards) with explicit scope (1–500 cards, from expected_deck_id to destination deck_id). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like delete_cards and preview_delete_cards, and the 'normal decks only; filtered cards rejected' clause further pins the domain.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: user authorization required, resolve IDs/current card deck IDs first, group cards by source deck, normal decks only. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling offers the same operation, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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