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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: 'Scripts you leave out keep their current order after the ones you name.' This clarifies the exact effect of the operation beyond what the annotations state, making the behavior predictable.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a dash to explain the ordering logic. The second sentence provides practical usage guidance without excessive detail. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with one parameter, a clear description, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description fully explains what happens to named and unnamed scripts and when to use it. No output schema is needed, and the tool's behavior is completely specified.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter semantics, including the exact order semantics and the behavior of omitted scripts. The tool description repeats this information but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the order the user's camera walks through their scripts.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on first-to-record ordering, which is not mentioned in other tool names like add_scripts_to_plan or edit_planned_scripts.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use it when the user says what to shoot first, or after planning a batch that should be recorded in sequence.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or mention alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough to guide an agent.

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