bulk_move_cards

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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits beyond the schema: cards to the same column are placed in the order listed, and the operation runs concurrently. These are critical for predicting execution behavior. However, it does not mention failure atomicity, error handling, or rate limits, and since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a clear Args block for parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting improves scannability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 bulk move operation with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation semantics: what the moves list looks like, ordering, and concurrency. It does not explain project_id/owner/repo (though these are schema-defined), nor does it address partial failures or result reporting, but it is sufficient for an agent to construct a correct call in most cases.

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?

The description significantly compensates for the schema's weak 'moves' parameter definition. The schema only specifies an array of objects with integer additionalProperties, while the description defines the required keys ('issue_number' and 'column_id') and explains ordering behavior. This is essential semantic information missing from the schema.

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 many cards at once, each to its own column', identifying both the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the singular 'move_card' sibling by emphasizing bulk operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 phrase 'Move many cards at once' implies the tool is intended for bulk scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the single-card 'move_card' or mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is present by implication rather than direct instruction.

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