move_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., removal from previous column, index reordering), permission requirements, or error conditions. The only extra context (destination_type semantics) is more about parameter behavior than tool behavior.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus a brief parameter note. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only essential conditional detail, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

As a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits position semantics, the parameter mapping for project triage, and behavioral consequences. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves key operational details unclear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to destination_type and the conditional requirement for workspace_id/category_name for 'category' moves. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'position' or which parameters are needed for the 'project' triage destination, leaving gaps.

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 tool moves a card to a board column or project triage, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling card tools (archive, update, create) by describing the destination types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for usage by explaining the two destination_type options and the conditional requirement for category moves (workspace_id and category_name). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like update_card or archive_card, so 'when not to use' is missing.

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