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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates without deleting. The description adds real behavior — that this is a whole-list reordering requiring every week id, first to last — but it never says what happens to weeks omitted from the list (ignored, dropped, appended), which is the key risk for a reorder operation.

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 well-formed sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; a small structural split would have made the completeness constraint more scannable.

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?

With two required params, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. It still leaves out the consequence of an incomplete or invalid week_ids list and whether the reordered weeks are returned, which matters for a full-replacement mutation.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by stating that week_ids must contain 'every week id of the program' in 'first to last' order — a completeness constraint the schema's 'in the new order' does not spell out.

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 the order given') and a specific resource ('the weeks of a program'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with adjacent siblings such as reorder_program_days or set_workout_weeks, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only usage hint ('week ids from get_program') lives in the schema, not the description, and nothing says when reorder is preferred over update_program_week or set_workout_weeks.

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