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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: expectedSpecVersion exists specifically to prevent stale writes, which signals optimistic-concurrency behavior an agent must respect. It still omits what happens on a version conflict and why the call is not idempotent.

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 core action front-loaded and the versioning constraint immediately after. Nothing 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 non-idempotent mutation with a nested input object and no output schema, the description is thin: no permission/auth requirements, no conflict or failure behavior, and no hint about how existing order is replaced. The stale-write note is the one substantive addition. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it explains the purpose of expectedSpecVersion but says nothing about projectId or the required nested input/title. The important semantic that layerIds must be the complete ordered list lives only in the schema. With low coverage and one of three params illuminated, a middling score fits.

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: 'Change the draw order of layers in a project map.' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like set_layer_visibility or add_layer, though it never explicitly names the boundaries against those neighbours.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite/permission note, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling layer tools. The only usage-ish statement is that expectedSpecVersion is required, which is a constraint rather than routing guidance.

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