planka_move_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a mutation action ('Move') and hints at the effect on card state (changing list/position). It doesn't disclose possible side effects like sorting behavior or potential errors, but the main behavioral trait (moving between lists) is transparent. The example also gives a practical cue.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the example is a single parenthetical. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters.

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's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the position parameter semantics. It lacks explicit mention of return behavior (e.g., returns updated card or success message), but for a move action, that may not be critical. The sibling list provides navigation context.

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 schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds the workflow context and clarifies that position is optional (default end). However, it doesn't add detail beyond the schema's own descriptions, but since the schema is complete, the baseline is 3, and the description's example slightly elevates it.

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 a card to a different list or position') with specific verbs and resources, and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like planka_update_card (which updates card fields) and planka_create_card. The example workflow ('To Do' -> 'In Progress') makes the purpose concrete.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for workflow transitions. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the context clear. Since it's a specific move action, the usage context is fairly self-evident, but it could have noted that this is distinct from updating card fields (planka_update_card).

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