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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the action. It does not describe side effects, idempotency, or any additional caveats. The description relies entirely on annotations, offering no new transparency value.

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 short and front-loaded with the main sentence, but the 'Guidance' line is somewhat cryptic and mixes guidance with a context listing. It is concise but could be clearer and more structured, e.g., separating usage guidance from parameter context.

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 destructive reorder operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the schema covers parameters. However, it lacks any usage context or preconditions, and the minimal text leaves some ambiguity about the exact ordering semantics (though the schema hints at it). Overall, it's barely adequate but missing any extra detail that would help an agent decide when to use it.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id and paragraph_ids) with 100% coverage, so the schema already explains their meaning and format. The description only repeats 'id, paragraph_ids' without adding any new semantic detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Reorder') and resource ('paragraphs'), and the guidance line clarifies it applies to one CMS sound item. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling reorder tools (e.g., cms_reorder_article_paragraphs) except by the resource type, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name that it applies to sound items. There is no explicit 'use when' or 'not for' statement.

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