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

The description reveals key behavioral semantics: the order array directly specifies the new sequence, and IDs not included retain their relative order. This goes beyond the schema, which only says 'Ids in the new order.' The annotation destructiveHint=false already signals it is not destructive, but the description adds operational detail about how the reordering affects unmentioned items.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action. It packs the key rule about omitted items without redundancy, earning every word.

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?

The tool has multiple conditional parameters (screen, milestone, milestone_id) and no output schema. While the schema gives brief usage hints, the description does not explain which parameters are required for each kind or what the API returns. The core reorder behavior is explained, but parameter coordination and return values remain ambiguous.

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 adds valuable semantics for the 'order' parameter by explaining that omitted items keep their relative order, which is not present in the schema. The schema already documents 'kind' and some conditional parameters with 83% coverage, so the description supplements rather than duplicates. It does not clarify the purpose of project_id, but overall it enhances parameter understanding.

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 function: reorder milestones, tasks, or elements. The 'DIRECT' qualifier and the explanation of the order parameter distinguish it from other list/update tools. Sibling tools like update_task or propose_milestone do not overlap with reordering, so it is unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is used to reorder resources, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for updating properties or creating entities. Since no sibling tool offers reordering, the context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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