move_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'This writes to the real board,' which is useful context for a mutating tool. But it does not disclose prerequisites, reversibility, or other side effects beyond the move itself.

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 tightly written: operation first, then a meaningful side-effect warning, then the only parameter format detail that needs explanation. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple move operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action, same-board scope, and position format. The main gap is the ambiguity of `to_list`—an agent may not know it needs a list ID—and there is no mention of what the response will contain, although the output schema mitigates that.

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 does clarify the `position` parameter's allowed values ('top', 'bottom', or numeric string), but `card_id` and `to_list` are not elaborated beyond their schema titles, and it does not confirm that `to_ist` expects a list ID rather than a list name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a card to a different list on the same board.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like update_card, create_card, and list_cards.

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 gives a clear usage context—moving cards within the same board—and warns that it writes to the real board. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives such as update_card, and it leaves the 'when not to use' cases to implication.

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