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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful ordering convention (0 = applied first), but says nothing about what happens to surrounding effects, out-of-range or negative indices, or what the call returns.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the parenthetical that defines the index base. No filler, nothing an agent must scroll past.

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 no output schema and three undocumented required parameters, the definition is minimal. It covers the core ordering concept but leaves error behavior, index bounds, and post-move state unaddressed, which matters for a reordering operation.

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 only 25% (just projectId is documented), so the description must carry weight. It does explain index origin semantics, which is genuinely useful, but clipId and effectId are left entirely to their names and the valid range for index is not constrained despite the schema permitting negative integers.

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?

"Reorder an effect within the clip stack" gives a specific verb plus resource and is clearly distinct from add_effect, remove_effect, update_effect and copy_effects. It stops short of a 5 only because it never names those siblings or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'reorder' tells the agent this is for changing ordering, not for editing effect parameters or adding/removing effects. There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no exclusion pointing at update_effect, and no mention of prerequisites such as the effect already existing on the clip.

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