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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the description need not restate safety basics. It adds only a vague note that approval requirements are organization-configurable and business workflow approvals apply, without saying what the tool actually changes, permissions needed, or side effects of reordering.

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 compact and front-loads the core action. The second sentence about approval requirements is somewhat vague and not clearly actionable, but overall it avoids unnecessary length.

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 destructive mutation with nested parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how ordering works, what happens to other approvers, or what approval constraints mean in practice, even though the output schema and annotations cover some return and safety context.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies that 'id' identifies the existing approver and 'data.order' is the new order position, but it does not explain the UUID format, the 1-100 order constraints, or the nested data wrapper.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing an existing budget approver's order. It is clear enough to distinguish from add/remove/list budget approver siblings by the word 'order', but it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus add_budget_approver, remove_budget_approver, or list_budget_approvers. The sentence about approval requirements does not help an agent select this tool or understand prerequisites beyond a vague organizational policy note.

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