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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and reversibility profile is covered. The description's only added behavior note is the exhaustiveness constraint, which is largely duplicated in the sortOrder schema description; it does not spell out the consequence of omitting a collection (it is dropped from the deck).

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence partially duplicates the schema's sortOrder description, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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?

With only two fully documented required parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool. The one gap is that the destructive side effect (collections not listed are removed) is only implied, leaving it to the annotations.

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 both parameters are documented, including where to source their values (list_collections, list_stream_decks). The description merely restates the sortOrder constraint, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Names a specific verb ("Replace ... display order") and resource (a stream deck's collection ordering), so it is clearly distinct from the reorder_stream_decks and reorder_terminal_tabs siblings. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly, so it is clear rather than fully differentiated.

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 second sentence supplies a real precondition for correct invocation (every existing collection ID, exactly once), which implies list_collections must be called first. However, it never says when to choose this tool over another ordering tool or what happens if the precondition is violated.

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