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

Beyond the annotations, which already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description reveals the actual ordering algorithm: locked demographics remain first and omitted questions preserve their relative order. This gives the agent concrete expectations about side effects without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Set the order of the editable questions by listing their qids') and then compacts the two important constraints into a short second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple mutation with no output schema and only two fully documented parameters, the description captures everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what to provide (qids in desired order), what is immutable (locked demographics first), and what happens to omitted questions (relative order preserved). No important gap is apparent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'listing their qids' adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Question ids in the desired order,' and it does not introduce any new parameter detail that the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the order of the editable questions by listing their qids.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling reorder_answer_options by targeting questions rather than answer options, and it adds precise scope with 'editable questions' and 'Locked demographics stay first.'

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when reordering editable questions via qidsched. It explains locked demographics and omitted-question behavior, which is helpful usage guidance, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases such as 'use reorder_answer_options for answer options' or what happens if you attempt to reorder locked questions.

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