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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it requires organization admin+, says the operation affects display order only, and the schema notes that partial lists are rejected with 400. These details are not implied by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint alone.

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 carry the entire core meaning: the operation, default scope, parent variant, permission level, side-effect scope, and the alternative tool. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The definition is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: required ids, parent semantics, full-order constraint, read-first advice, and permission are all present. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation would be a minor enhancement, but its absence does not prevent correct invocation.

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 main description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema: the schema already documents parentId's top-level/null behavior and orderedAreaIds' 'exactly once' full-sibling requirement. The description references parentId and sibling grouping, but does not substantially extend the property-level semantics already present.

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 a specific verb ('Reorder'), a specific resource ('process landscape area folders'), and the scope ('sibling group... left-to-right'). It also distinguishes itself from setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement by clarifying that this tool only changes display order, not parent assignment.

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?

It explicitly explains the default case (top-level areas) versus the parentId case (folder children), and gives a direct alternative for reparenting: 'use setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement to move a node to a different parent.' The 'display order only' caveat is a clear when-not-to-use signal.

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