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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that callers must supply the same IDs, meaning omitted IDs are not allowed or would break the operation. This is useful beyond the raw annotations and there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence captures the action and the critical constraint. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant 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 tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. The required post_id and the list of all current asset IDs are both covered, and the agent can invoke the tool correctly without further context.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully, including that asset_ids must be 'all currently attached Asset IDs in the desired order.' The description mostly restates the asset_ids semantics, adding little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('reorders') and a clear resource ('existing post assets'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling attach/detach tools by emphasizing that the ID list contains the same IDs in a new order, not a modified set.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this when you want to reorder already attached assets. It implies the contrast with attach/detach tools, though it does not explicitly name them or state 'when not to use'.

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