Move cards to deck

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds concrete substance on top: the cards leave their current decks and 'the previous placement is lost', plus the create-if-missing side effect and 'Returns null on success'. It stops short of describing failure or partial-failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 semicolon-joined clauses plus a return-value note, all of which carry information; the destructive consequence is front-loaded right after the action. The 'card IDs, not note IDs' phrase is duplicated from the schema, a minor redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

With only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers action, ID type, deck-creation behavior, the destructive consequence, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'Parent::Child' subdeck syntax and the card-vs-note ID distinction. The description restates the card-ID constraint rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Moves cards ... to the given deck') and pre-empts the most likely confusion by stating 'card IDs, not note IDs'. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, but no sibling performs an overlapping move operation, so disambiguation is effectively complete.

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?

It clearly establishes the situation for use (relocating cards by card ID to a deck) and discloses the side effect that the target deck is auto-created, which is a real decision factor for the caller. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but there is no competing tool in the sibling list to route away from.

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