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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that positions are 0-based, but says nothing about how the remaining tiles reflow, what happens with an out-of-range position, or any permission requirement.

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?

A single short sentence with the essential scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though terse enough that it trades away some necessary detail.

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 two-parameter reorder tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits reflow behavior, out-of-range handling, and the meaning of 'id'. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'position' is a 0-based index into the tile list, which the schema (integer, min 0) cannot convey, but leaves 'id' undocumented and gives no guidance on bounds or invalid values.

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 (move) and resource (tile) plus the target semantics (0-based position in the tile list), which separates it from add_tile/remove_tile/update_tile. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with update_tile, which is the nearest ambiguous neighbor.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of update_tile (which may also change ordering) or any precondition such as the tile needing to already exist. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'position'.

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