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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that reordering can happen in two distinct ways: moving one asset to a position or sorting the whole playlist. It leaves out details like reversibility or page-context dependencies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and both modes. The compression means the branching requirements for each mode are not spelled out, but that is acceptable at this level.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two mutually exclusive body shapes, required playlist_id, 50% schema coverage), the one-sentence description orients the agent but is incomplete. It does not explain that the move mode requires page_number and page_size, nor that sort_by and sort_order travel together, leaving those dependencies to be inferred from the schema.

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 only 50%. The description clarifies the sort mode's basis (title or created date) and the move mode's target position concept, but it says nothing about required fields such as page_number, page_size, asset_id, or sort_order. It adds some value but does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Reorder videos inside a playlist') and enumerates two operational modes, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that add, remove, or update playlists. It could name an alternative tool more explicitly, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Names the two supported modes (single asset move vs. sort by title/created date), which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as needing the current page context, and no guidance for choosing between the two modes.

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