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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/closed-world, and the description sharpens exactly what that destructiveness means: only position order changes, unlisted cards retain relative order after the listed ones, no status/date/field mutation, no publishing. It also documents the return payload shape, which no output schema provides.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded on the core action before the ordering mechanics and the explicit non-effects. Every clause carries operational 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 mutating, no-output-schema tool it covers effects, non-effects, partial-list behavior, and the response shape. Remaining gaps are the unmentioned brandId and no statement of what happens on invalid ids (e.g. an id from another column).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does well for orderedIds — cardinality (1-200), the constraint that all ids belong to the target column, and the resulting 0..n-1 positions — plus the status enum values. brandId is never mentioned, leaving one required-ish parameter opaque.

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 ('Set the order of cards inside one kanban column') and scopes it to a single column with explicit enum values. The negative clause 'Does NOT change any card's status' separates it from move_content, which shares the card/column domain.

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?

Clear context for when to reach for it: intra-column ordering with cards that 'all must belong to that column,' plus the exclusion that it does not publish or change status/date/fields. It stops short of naming the alternative (move_content) for cross-column moves, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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