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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It explains that remaining pages shift, that active_index is rewritten to keep pointing at the same page, and that out-of-range indices cause failure. These are non-obvious side effects and error semantics that the schema alone does not provide.

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 short sentences deliver the operation, side effects, and failure mode without repetition or filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds information.

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 reorder operation with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the move, the resulting list shift, the active_index behavior, and error conditions, so an agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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 the baseline applies. The description references `from_index` and `to_index` in prose, but the schema already documents that they are 0-based indices. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Move a page from `from_index` to `to_index`.' The resource is unambiguously a page, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reorder_layer or move_band. It also names the two indices involved, leaving no ambiguity about what operation the tool performs.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a page needs to be reordered. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the choice from the page-specific wording rather than receiving direct routing guidance.

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