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

Annotations already cover the non-readOnly and non-destructive profile, and the description adds the ordering constraint 'every status exactly once, first column first.' However, it does not describe behavior for invalid or incomplete lists, duplicate entries, or any side effects beyond reordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by the single essential usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the input invariant, and a prerequisite read call. It could add error behavior, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'Name every status on the team exactly once, first column first' clarifies exact-once semantics and the positional column ordering that the schema only implies with 'in the order they should appear.'

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 ('Set'/'Reorder') with a specific resource ('board order of a team' / 'workflow states of a team'), and the 'exactly once, first column first' constraint makes the operation unmistakable among sibling state tools like list_states, create_state, and update_state.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call list_states first to see the current order, which is a concrete prerequisite and names the relevant read-only sibling. It does not enumerate exclusions for other state-mutating siblings, but it gives enough situational context.

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