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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and the description adds crucial operational context: required role, the full-set invariant, rejection of partial lists, WBS depth-first ordering constraints, and the return shape. These are material behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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?

Although detailed, the description is dense and front-loaded with the core operation, then prerequisites, constraints, and alternatives. Each sentence addresses a distinct decision-relevant fact, 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?

For a constrained mutation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers role requirements, preparation, ordering rules, rejection conditions, hierarchy alternatives, and return behavior. An agent has everything needed 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 coverage is already 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description substantially enriches taskIds semantics: it must contain every task exactly once, in top-to-bottom order, and must respect WBS depth-first traversal. That goes well beyond the schema's brief 'desired display order' 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 states a specific verb and resource: setting the display order of a project's tasks across both the task list and Gantt chart. It explicitly distinguishes this from set_task_parent, making the boundary between reordering within a level and changing hierarchy 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?

It gives explicit prerequisites (Administrator or ProjectManager role), required preparation (call list_tasks_by_project first), constraints (every task exactly once; no partial lists), and the alternative for changing hierarchy (set_task_parent). This is a complete when/how/alternative guide.

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