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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: partial reorders leave untouched records in place ('a subset keeps every other project in place', 'developing and ready Batches keep their place'), plus a hard precondition on the work parent and a workflow-stage restriction on instructions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the bullet list is the right structure for eight kinds with divergent rules. It is longer than average but each bullet carries distinct, load-bearing constraints, so little is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effects, preconditions, and per-kind scoping an agent needs. It omits what the call returns or how errors surface, but the core invocation requirements are 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%, and the schema itself defers parentId semantics to the description ('the tool description says what each kind takes'). The description delivers on that, specifying per-kind parentId targets and the orderedIds ordering rule, adding real meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Set the manual order of one kind of record') and adds the ordering semantics ('first shown first'). No sibling tool performs reordering, so it is unambiguously distinguishable, and the kind list makes scope concrete.

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 bulleted per-kind rules effectively state when each variant applies: which kinds require a parentId, that a 'work' parent batch must not be ready, and that 'instruction' reordering is only accepted during a workflow's self-improvement stage. It gives rich context but does not name alternative tools (there are none), so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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