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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive), so the description could have spent its space on the real unknown: whether ordered_status_ids must be a complete list and what happens to statuses omitted from it. That key behavioral ambiguity is left unaddressed.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the required parameter. Nothing is wasted, though there is very little content to structure.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the basics are covered and no output schema is needed. However, the all-or-nothing semantics of the ordering payload are missing, which is the one thing an agent must know to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so both board_id (with its default to the active board) and ordered_status_ids are documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the parameter name but adds no constraint such as completeness or duplicate handling, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('set deterministic status ordering') and resource ('status ordering for a board'), which clearly separates it from single-status siblings like update_status or list_statuses. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the action 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?

It only says to supply orderedStatusIds; there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_status or create_status, no prerequisites, and no note about whether the board must already have statuses. Usage is inferable from the name only, not from the text.

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