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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds a crucial behavioral fact not in the annotations: this is a full-replacement operation requiring the complete ID set exactly once, which is an easy way to lose ordering or drop bumps. It also discloses the return value ('Returns the reordered list') and points at list_order_bumps as the read path. Remaining gaps are minor (no permissions or partial-list error behavior).

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 sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the operational constraint and the sibling pointer. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

Output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary and the single clause 'Returns the reordered list' is sufficient. With 100% schema coverage, one enum parameter and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the productIds field already spells out 'each exactly once, in the order to show them', so the description's 'Send every order bump product ID on the page exactly once' largely restates the schema. It reinforces the completeness constraint but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what is structured.

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 and resource ('Set the display order of the order bumps') and scopes it to a checkout page or event, which distinguishes it from create_order_bump, update_order_bump and list_order_bumps in the sibling list. An agent can tell immediately that this is a bulk ordering operation rather than a per-bump edit.

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?

Gives an explicit operational prerequisite: send every order bump product ID on the page exactly once, and read them first with list_order_bumps. The page type variants (checkout vs event) are covered in the schema. What's missing is an explicit 'when not to use' pointer to update_order_bump for single-bump changes, so it falls 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.