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

Annotations supply the mutation/safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description meaningfully extends it with auth prerequisites (Ed25519 handoff-signed-req, required X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp headers) and transport quirks (single-use signatures on the SSE bridge). It does not spell out that an existing order is wholesale replaced, which is the key destructive behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 first two sentences are tightly front-loaded and high value, but the trailing AUTH/TRANSPORT block is long and includes legacy-SSE internals that are operational detail rather than selection or invocation guidance. It is dense rather than wasteful, but the tail dilutes the signal.

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 and only two parameters, the description covers the signing requirement, transport behavior, and ordering semantics thoroughly enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of describing the response or the permission model beyond 'Requester-gated'.

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 coverage is 50%: the schema documents `order` but leaves `request_id` bare. The description compensates well for `order` by explaining index-as-priority, parallel batching, unknown-id dropping, and appending of new goals — real meaning beyond the schema string. `request_id` remains unexplained in both places.

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+resource (set the priority + parallelism of a project's goals) and defines the exact ordering semantics: 'order[i] = goal ids that run in parallel at step i; lower index = higher priority'. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling set_task_order, which orders tasks rather than goals.

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 through the semantics and the 'Requester-gated' prerequisite, but the description never explicitly says when to reach for this tool versus set_task_order, set_hierarchy, or amend_plan. The reader must infer the project-goal scope from the noun alone.

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