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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds real value beyond them: the effect is a swap with a neighbor (explaining why repeated calls undo each other) and the result applies to the entire team, not just the caller, which is a significant side effect for an agent to know.

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?

Front-loaded core sentence with the mechanism, followed by one useful caveat about team-wide scope. The trailing '| EN: start card, order, reorder' keyword tag is search metadata rather than agent guidance, a minor bit of 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, scope of effect, and the permission restriction well. It omits edge behavior (e.g., moving the topmost card up) and which role is required to perform the change, which would complete it.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what 'dir' actually does (swaps position with the neighboring card), giving meaning the schema's bare 'up oder down' does not.

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 ('Reihenfolge der Startkarten ... aendern') plus the exact mechanism ('id + dir=up|down tauscht den Platz mit dem Nachbarn'). It also explicitly contrasts with personal favorites, which distinguishes it from the onto_favorite_* siblings.

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 clear context for use: reordering is a team-wide operation and users cannot perform it themselves, unlike personal favorites. It does not explicitly route to onto_startcard_index or onto_startcard_save as alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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