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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds no additional context about side effects, such as overwriting the paragraph order or requiring all paragraph IDs to be supplied. The phrase 'Reorder all paragraphs' hints at the requirement but does not explain behavioral consequences beyond the name.

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 description is very concise, with the core action front-loaded. The guidance section is somewhat redundant ('Reorder all paragraphs for one CMS article' repeats the purpose) but not harmful. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys that all paragraphs must be reordered and that the id and paragraph_ids are the relevant context. However, it does not mention any return value, success indicators, or immediate effects, which could be helpful but is not strictly required given the low complexity.

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 both parameters are documented with useful descriptions (e.g., 'Full ordered list of paragraph ids'). The description only lists the parameter names ('context: id, paragraph_ids') without adding any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 description states a specific action ('Reorder paragraphs') and scopes it to 'one CMS article', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling reorder tools like cms_reorder_event_paragraphs. The verb and resource are explicit and 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?

The description clearly indicates the use case (reorder all paragraphs for one CMS article) and implicitly separates it from reordering other entity types. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full guidance but is still clear.

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