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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description further clarifies that the supplied paragraph_ids represent the full ordered list, reinforcing that the operation replaces the existing ordering.

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 and guidance are extremely concise and directly actionable. There is no filler or redundant information.

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, has no output schema, and its input plus effect are fully described by the parameter schema and guidance. Missing details such as error behavior or return values are not necessary for this straightforward reorder operation.

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?

Both parameters have meaningful schema descriptions: id is sourced from cms_list_maps and paragraph_ids is a full ordered list. This goes beyond mere names and gives enough context to construct a correct call.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation as reordering paragraphs and scopes it to a single CMS map item. The verb 'Reorder' plus the resource and map-item context is specific and distinguishes it from sibling reorder tools for articles, events, sounds, and videos.

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 guidance explicitly says to reorder all paragraphs for one CMS map item, making the primary usage context clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the map-specific language and sibling tool names make the appropriate selection obvious.

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