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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important constraint that the payload must name every folder exactly once, but does not explain side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, meriting a 3.

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 the action, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with complete schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies the core operation and the exhaustive-payload constraint. It omits when-to-use and side-effect detail, but the structured fields cover the rest, so it is mostly 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema fully describes both team_id and folderIds. The description adds the 'exactly once' uniqueness requirement, which is not expressed by the array schema (no uniqueItems), so it adds value beyond the schema and earns a 4.

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 ('Reorder') and resource ('the team's process folders') and specifies the ordering basis ('match the given id order'). It does not name sibling tools like reorderClarityLandscapeAreas or reorderConfigSections, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, fitting a 4.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The description states the operation and its payload constraint but does not tell an agent when to choose this over list/update/move folder operations, so it scores 2.

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