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

Annotations already indicate the operation is non-read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying that each goal is assigned position equal to its array index and that all goals must be siblings with the same priority, which clarifies the exact effect of the call.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and its scope, the second explains the array-index mechanics and the constraint. Every sentence 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering read-only and idempotence, the description captures what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. A brief pointer to goal-move for reordering across different parents or priorities would make it fully complete.

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% because the ids parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by defining the mapping rule (position equals array index) and restating the same-parent/same-priority constraint in clear English, going slightly beyond the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set display order of sibling goals within the same parent and priority band.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from goal-move and other goal mutation siblings by specifying the scope and the action.

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 clearly states the conditions for use: all goals must share the same parent and priority, and the array order defines the display order. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for moving goals across parents or priorities, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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