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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 400 validation error naming missing/unknown/repeated keys, the return of every section in the new order, and the durability note that a module template reinstall preserves the moved order.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the validation contract, the return, and the persistence caveat. Front-loaded with the core operation and no filler, though it is slightly dense with three separate facts packed in.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return value ('every section in its new order'), plus the validation-failure behavior and the reinstall persistence edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this two-parameter mutation correctly is missing.

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 itself already documents both keys and automation_id, including the 'every section key exactly once' constraint. The description largely restates that constraint and adds only the error response detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (replace/reorder the display order) and resource (this automation's Policy sections), which cleanly separates it from siblings like renameConfigSection, addConfigSection and removeConfigSection. An agent can identify the operation 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?

The description conveys a key usage constraint (keys must list every section key exactly once) but never states when to choose this tool versus renameConfigSection or listConfigSections, nor any prerequisites such as reading the current order first. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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