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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the key non-obvious semantic: this is a full replacement of the ordering, requiring every clip exactly once (omitting one would silently drop it from the order). It also discloses the active-cut restriction and that the cut is returned, useful since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the completeness constraint, the scope restriction, and the return value. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, and the description covers action, ordering contract, scope restriction, and return value. It does not say what happens on a malformed or partial clipIds list (error vs. partial reorder), which is the one behavior an agent might need before calling.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including that clipIds is the new order and where cutId/threadId come from. The description restates the 'exactly once' completeness rule but adds little syntax or validation detail beyond 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 and resource ('Set the playback order of the clips in a cut') and adds a precise constraint that separates it from add_clips_to_timeline/remove_clips: the list must be complete. It never names a sibling tool directly, so an agent must infer the routing from verb semantics 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?

Gives clear preconditions: clip ids come from get_timeline, and the cut must be the active one. That establishes when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer add_clips_to_timeline or create_cut instead, nor what to do if the cut is inactive.

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