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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-destructive mutation and not idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context: the order must list every current index exactly once, and the first item becomes the main meaning. It does not describe error behavior for invalid orders, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses one concrete example to clarify the most confusing parameter. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given the simple two-parameter mutation, rich schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the necessary conceptual context. It explains the main-meaning effect and index ordering without needing to repeat return-value details.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful concrete example, [2, 0, 1], showing how indices map to the new order and main meaning, which goes beyond the schema's prose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reordering a word's meanings. It also explains the key effect, that the first entry becomes the main meaning used by practice, which distinguishes it from add_meaning, update_meaning, and remove_meaning.

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 makes the use case clear by explaining that the first meaning is the one practice asks about, implying this tool changes which meaning is primary. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_meaning or state when not to use this tool.

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