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

Annotations already carry destructive=true and updates_are_not_idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the reason string is surfaced to the user in change history, and every change is undoable on the phone. That reversibility note materially softens what 'destructiveHint' would otherwise imply and is not derivable from the annotations. It doesn't say what happens when order, remove, and remove_marks are combined in one call.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verbs, then the intent trigger, then the behavioral payoff — nothing redundant. No restating of the tool name or filler preamble.

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?

An output schema exists and all four parameters are fully documented, so the description only needed to cover intent and side effects, which it does. The remaining gap is minor: it doesn't clarify interaction between simultaneous order/remove arguments or whether an omitted `remove` means 'no removals'.

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 ordering/preservation semantics of `order`, the max item limits, and the reason length cap are all already documented in the schema. The description's only added signal is that `reason` is user-visible, which the schema also states, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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?

Names three concrete operations (reorder cards, remove cards, remove marks) against the resource 'home cards', which an agent can match to a user intent like 'tidy my home'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as edit_card or pin_card, so differentiation relies on the reader knowing those tools.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — the user asking to set up or tidy their home — reinforced with a worked example ('set my home up for race week'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at alternatives for single-card changes (edit_card, pin_card).

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