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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds nothing about the mutation's scope — notably whether goals omitted from ids are removed from the ordering or appended after those listed, which is the central behavioral question for a reorder operation.

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?

The ordering rule is correctly front-loaded, but two of the three sentences are boilerplate about minor-unit amounts and YYYY-MM budget periods — quantities and dates that do not exist in this tool's single parameter. That content doesn't earn its place here and dilutes the actionable instruction.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, annotations covering safety), and the description conveys the ordering contract. What is missing is the effect on goals not present in ids and whether the supplied list must be exhaustive, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load. It does supply the essential semantic that the array order encodes priority ('first = most important', 'room goes down the list'), which the schema cannot express. However, it wastes that space on amount and date formatting rules that have no corresponding parameters in this 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?

The first clause states a specific verb and resource — 'Put goals in priority order' — which clearly distinguishes it from create_goal, update_goal and list_goals. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus update_goal or apply_goal_cuts, and no prerequisite or state requirements (e.g. must all goals be listed?). The only usage-adjacent content is the ordering convention, which is a parameter semantic rather than invocation guidance.

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