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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact semantics of the order array (1-based, every position exactly once, with a concrete [3,1,2] example). It doesn't cover reversibility or error behavior on invalid positions, keeping it at 4.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the illustrative example earns its place by disambiguating the non-obvious order semantics. Zero waste.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly complete – it nails the tricky parameter. It leaves unstated what happens to sections omitted from the list or how invalid positions are handled, a minor 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 coverage is only 33% – only 'order' has a schema description, and pageName/projectId are undocumented. The description compensates strongly for the ambiguous parameter by explaining 1-based indexing, the 'every position once' rule, and giving a worked example, which the bare schema phrase 'Every current position, exactly once' 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+resource ('Put a page's sections in a new order'), clearly distinguishing this from the sibling uichemy_reorder_pages which operates on pages rather than sections. It's clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly call out the sibling alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like reorder_pages or replace_section. Usage is only implied by the imperative 'Put a page's sections in a new order'.

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