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

Even though annotations already show this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: a numeric position is silently ignored, and position_before: null returns 200 but does nothing. These are exactly the kind of gotchas an agent needs to avoid incorrect assumptions.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent sentences address the most error-prone reorder semantics. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

The description covers reorder semantics thoroughly and identifies the mutable section fields, but it omits any guidance on the layout parameter and does not describe expected return behavior in the absence of an output schema. These are moderate gaps for a patch-like update tool.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does a strong job on position_before by explaining the uuid target and top-of-list behavior, and it maps title to 'rename' and is_visible to 'hide'. However, the layout parameter is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

The description names a specific resource (section) and concrete operations: rename, hide, and reorder. This clearly separates it from section create/list/delete siblings and from update tools on other resources. The 'REORDER' emphasis also highlights the most distinctive behavior.

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 provides clear operational context: ordering is relative and requires a uuid rather than a numeric index. It warns explicitly about the unsupported numeric position and the no-op null case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling update/create tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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