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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that this is a full overwrite of display order rather than an incremental move, plus the completeness requirement on the ID list.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core action ('Replace ... display order') is front-loaded before the constraint.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented. The only unaddressed question is what happens to decks omitted from the list, which matters given destructiveHint=true — a small but real gap.

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 the sortOrder description already states 'Every deck ID from list_stream_decks exactly once, in the new display order'. The description restates that constraint without adding format, ordering, or error-handling detail, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Replace the signed-in user's stream deck display order'), which is unambiguous against siblings like reorder_collections and reorder_terminal_tabs, whose resources differ. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun is distinct enough that no differentiation is strictly required.

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 instruction 'Include every existing deck ID exactly once' is a meaningful usage constraint, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus update_stream_deck (the sibling for changing a deck's properties) or where the IDs come from. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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