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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the top-first ordering direction and the exactly-once completeness requirement, which explains why an incomplete list is dangerous. It still doesn't say what happens if a link is omitted (error vs. removal), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation stated first and the critical constraint immediately after. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety hints, the description covers purpose, ordering direction, and the completeness rule. The remaining gap — what an omitted link does given destructiveHint=true — is the one thing an agent would still want to know before calling it.

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% and the single parameter is self-describing ('Every link id, in the new order'), so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: 'top first' disambiguates what 'the new order' means (index 0 = topmost) and 'exactly once' flags the uniqueness constraint on the array.

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 ('puts ... in a new order') and resource ('the page's links'), and no sibling tool (add_link, update_link, set_featured_link, archive_link) performs ordering, so it is trivially distinguishable. An agent knows exactly what operation this is without opening the schema.

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?

'Name every link on the page exactly once' is an important operational precondition — it tells the agent this is a full-replacement of the ordering, not a partial tweak, which is the main way an agent could misuse it. It does not, however, name when to prefer this over update_link or how archived/hidden links are treated, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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