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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context ('Invalid browser continuations are rejected', 'No launch') but never discloses what reordering destroys or that it mutates persisted ordering, which the destructiveHint implies.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with the core operation stated first and no wasted prose. The 'No launch.' fragment is terse but functional; overall efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a destructive, idempotent reorder with a nested construction parameter, the description is thin on preconditions and the consequences of invalid ordering.

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 75% and the schema itself documents blockIds thoroughly ('Every existing block ID exactly once...'). The description reinforces the blockIds constraint but says nothing about construction or expectedRevision, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 test blocks, with the key constraint that every block ID must appear exactly once. The action is unmistakable, though it doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like update_test_block or set_test_construction.

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?

Provides no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. 'Order controls execution and survey scope' hints at why ordering matters but doesn't tell the agent when to pick this over list_test_blocks, update_test_block, or set_test_construction. No prerequisites stated.

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