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

Annotations already declare non-read-only but non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what reordering does to intervening tracks, whether index is clamped to the track count, or whether the mutation is undoable — gaps that matter for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentence with the key ordering fact front-loaded after the verb. No filler, though the brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than optimally dense.

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 three-parameter mutation with an undocumented required trackId and no output schema, the description is thin but serviceable. An agent knows what to do but not the edge-case semantics or the effect on sibling tracks.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. 'Index 0 = top layer' adds genuinely useful ordering semantics absent from the bare integer schema, but trackId is left completely unexplained and there is no mention of out-of-range index behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reorder a track'), immediately distinguishing it from clip/effect/media moves in the sibling list. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_track, add_track, remove_track, or move_clip. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical about index 0, which describes a parameter rather than when to invoke the tool.

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