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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description aligns: 'changes display order only' confirms non-destructive behavior. It adds value by stating the action is non-reparenting (display-only) and parentId handling for null vs empty. Could be stronger by explicitly noting this is a safe operation that can be called repeatedly with same results, but idempotentHint already covers that.

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 clear sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the core action with scope condition (default or parentId), second sentence disambiguates from the sibling tool and sets expectations about what it doesn't do. Every word is functional — a model of efficient tool documentation.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, this description covers the essential behavioral contract. It clarifies what tool to use for parent-changing, explains permission boundaries, handles the ambiguous parentId case, and gives explicit guidance on orderedAreaIds validation. The only minor gap is no return value description, but since there's no output schema and reorders typically return success/void, this is acceptable for the complexity level.

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 67%, and the description adds significant meaning for the undocumented parentId parameter (explains omit/pass null = top-level), and for orderedAreaIds adds critical guidance about getting current order first with getClarityProcessTree and the 400-error for partial lists. orgId has no description needed since schema defines it as uuid. The description compensates well for the coverage gap.

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 states the verb 'Reorder', the resource 'sibling group of landscape area folders', and the scope 'left-to-right', with clear differentiation from the sibling tool 'setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement' which moves nodes to different parents. This distinguishes it perfectly from a sibling reorder tool (reorderClarityFolders) and the placement tool.

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 states when to use this tool ('reorder children of parentId') vs the alternative ('setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement to move to a different parent'). Also clarifies admin+ permission needed and that this is only for display order, not structural changes. The schema description for orderedAreaIds adds critical usage rules: 'Read the current siblings first...'.

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