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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not marked destructive. The description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that the payload must name every folder exactly once, implying a full-set reorder rather than a partial move. It does not disclose error behavior, validation failures, or what happens if some folders are omitted, so more context was possible.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the critical payload invariant is stated clearly in the second sentence.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers what the tool does and what inputs are needed. The main gap is the absence of expected response or error behavior, but the annotations and schema provide enough context for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, including a detailed explanation of team_id and folderIds. The description adds value by reinforcing that folderIds must name every folder exactly once, which is a stronger invariant than the schema's 'Every team folder ID, in the desired display order.' This helps the agent avoid constructing a partial or duplicate list.

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 and resource: 'Reorder the team's process folders to match the given id order.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reorderClarityLandscapeAreas, which operates on a different resource, and updateClarityFolder, which implies settings modification rather than ordering.

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 implies when to use the tool: when folders need to be reordered to a specific id sequence. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as moveClarityProcessesToFolder or setupClarityFoldersFromLandscape, nor does it state when not to use it. The payload constraint is useful but is more about input construction than tool selection.

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