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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'all steps', implying a full-set replacement rather than a partial move, but it never says what happens to steps omitted from stepIds or whether the operation is reversible.

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; the ordering semantics land immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly what leaves the usage and parameter gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive mutation with 0% parameter coverage, the description should state that stepIds must enumerate every step and what an omitted step implies; that critical detail is only hinted at.

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 0% for all three parameters. The phrase 'all steps' usefully clarifies that stepIds must be the complete ordered list, but apiId and endpointId are never mentioned and their relationship (endpoint nested under API) is left unexplained.

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 ('Set the order') and resource ('steps in an API draft endpoint'), which is enough to separate it from step_create, step_update and step_delete. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the ordering verb is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus step_update (which might also affect ordering) or step_create, and no stated prerequisites such as the endpoint needing to exist in a draft. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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