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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description reinforces this by saying 'Replace' and requiring every existing tab ID exactly once, which warns the agent that omitted tabs are effectively dropped. It stops short of describing permissions or the response.

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, the action front-loaded and the completeness constraint immediately after. No filler.

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 no explanation, and the destructive/idempotent profile is covered by annotations plus the 'Replace' wording. The definition is adequate for a single-array-parameter mutation, with only per-tab versus bulk routing left implicit.

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 specifies 'Every tab ID from list_terminal_tabs exactly once, in the new display order.' The description restates that constraint without adding format or ordering details beyond the schema.

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 (Replace) and resource (terminal tab display order) scoped to the signed-in user, distinguishing it from update_terminal_tab which modifies a single tab. It does not name list_terminal_tabs as the source of IDs, but the schema does.

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 implies usage (a wholesale reorder rather than per-tab edits) and gives the correctness constraint of including every tab ID exactly once, but never states when to prefer this over update_terminal_tab or list_terminal_tabs.

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