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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the write nature and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing that each goal is assigned position = its array index and that all goals must share the same parent and priority. It leaves edge cases undisclosed (e.g., behavior for goals omitted from the array), but the core mechanics are transparent.

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 tightly focused sentences: purpose first, then operational mechanics, then constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the parameter mechanics, and the critical constraint. The only gap is the lack of detail on edge cases like omitting goals from the array or error behavior when the shared-parent/priority constraint is violated, which would round it out.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by defining the positional semantics—'each is assigned position = its array index'—which clarifies exactly how the ids array is interpreted beyond the schema's 'in new order' phrasing.

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 ('Set') with a precise resource ('display order of sibling goals within the same parent and priority band'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like goal-move (which moves goals across parents) and goal-update. The scope constraint (same parent and priority) is explicit and unambiguous.

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 conveys when to use this tool—reordering sibling goals within a shared parent and priority band—by stating the operation and its prerequisite constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it relative to goal-move or goal-update, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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