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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: the plan gate, the mandatory user-approval protocol, and the fact that the destructive effect is limited to ordering (content is untouched) with scenarioIds interpreted top-first. That is real behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ordering rule, followed by the plan gate and the approval protocol. No filler; every sentence constrains agent behavior.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers action, ordering, permissions, and the approval safeguard. The remaining gap is whether scenarioIds is a full replacement list or a partial one, which matters for something marked destructive.

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 only 33% (only confirmed is documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain scenarioIds ordering semantics (top first) but leaves agentId entirely unexplained, and it never says whether the array must list all scenarios or what happens to omitted ones.

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 and resource: 'Set the order of a receptionist's Call Scenarios', and clarifies that scenarioIds is top-first. This clearly separates it from call_scenarios_create/delete and listCallScenarios, though it never explicitly distinguishes it from call_scenarios_update, which might also touch ordering.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call listCallScenarios first, show the exact change, wait for explicit approval, and only then set confirmed=true. It also names the plan requirement (PRO or Growth on older plans), so the agent knows when the call is even permitted.

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