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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it runs without confirmation, the response contains both the new and old order, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. This is strong context though the mutating-but-non-destructive profile is only partially elaborated (e.g., no note on what happens to notes/times attached to places).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the recovery path is stated, but the first two sentences overlap ('reorder... for a shorter route' / 'reorders the places... and returns the new order'), and the 'Wanderlog:' prefix duplicates the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating that the new order (and old order) are returned. Auth requirement and inputs are covered; the main omission is any note on side effects on per-place metadata, which matters for a mutating tool.

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%, so the schema already documents trip_id and day. The description adds only that it acts on a single day and returns a new order, roughly the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 -- 'reorder the places of one day for a shorter route' -- and anchors it to the app's own route optimization. It also names sibling tools (remove_place, add_place) in a way that clarifies the tool's role in the workflow.

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?

Usage is implied (optimize the order of places within a given day) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or a stated alternative route-optimization tool. The mention of add_place/remove_place is about recovery, not about selecting this tool over another.

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