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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the admin+ authorization requirement and the reassurance that this 'changes display order only' (reorder vs. reparent). There is a mild tension in that annotations mark it destructive while the description says only display order changes, but that reads as ordering being overwritten rather than an outright contradiction; the description could be more explicit about whether the full sibling set is replaced.

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 sentences that are tightly front-loaded: the action and its scope come first, followed immediately by the routing alternative. No filler, and the parentId default is explained inline efficiently.

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 3-parameter reorder mutation with no output schema, the definition gives the agent what it needs: scope, permission, safety profile (via annotations plus 'display order only'), and the sibling alternative. The one thin spot is the ordering-replacement semantics and the required complete-list precondition, which is only carried by the schema rather than reinforced in the description.

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 67%, and the schema already documents parentId ('Omit or pass null to reorder the top-level areas') and the orderedAreaIds all-siblings-exactly-once rule with the 400 consequence. The description largely restates the parentId behavior ('top-level areas by default, or the folder children of parentId') rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so it lands at the baseline for a partially covered 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 names a specific verb ('Reorder'), a specific resource ('sibling group of the organization's process landscape area folders'), and the exact scope ('left-to-right', 'top-level areas by default, or the folder children of parentId'). It also names the sibling tool it is not (setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement) for reparenting, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit usage context: default top-level reordering vs. scoping to children of parentId. It states the exclusion clearly ('use setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement to move a node to a different parent'), and the required permission level ('organization admin+') is disclosed. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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