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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: the moved component keeps its id, classes, and id-styles, and the operation is scoped to 'the current page'. It does not cover failure modes (invalid anchorPath, cross-page attempts).

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 clauses with the core action front-loaded, followed by examples and then the critical usage warning. No filler sentences; each part earns its place.

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 3-param reordering mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what happens to the moved element' and the page constraint, and the schema covers the parameters. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and whether paths must be re-read after a move.

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%, and each parameter (position enum, anchorPath, targetPath) is already documented in the schema, including the 'from read_page' provenance. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('Move a component to just before or after another component') and adds concrete scenarios (reorder sections, swap columns, lift a CTA). An agent can immediately distinguish this from delete_section, duplicate_section, insert_block, or edit_section.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('ALWAYS use this to reorder') and when not to, by naming the wrong alternative ('delete + re-add loses the component's styles'). That is a direct routing rule with a stated consequence.

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