move_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'move', implying a mutation, but does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, or constraints (e.g., whether at least one of lane_id/column_id is required). It also does not address side effects like position history or validation 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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could arguably be even more specific without losing brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify whether at least one target is required, what happens if only one is provided, or the effect on the card's location history. An agent could easily misinvoke by supplying no lane or column, making the description incomplete for correct use.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds the 'and/or' qualifier, clarifying that either lane or column (or both) can be targeted, which is useful. However, it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it stays at baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Move a card to a different column and/or lane.' This distinguishes it from most sibling tools like get_card or delete_card. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from update_card, which could also alter a card's position, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_card, which might also change a card's column or lane. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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