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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description still adds real behavior: the error semantics of an incomplete key list, the return payload ('returns every section in its new order'), and the persistence guarantee across a module template reinstall. That is substantive context beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the constraint and return behavior; little waste. The closing sentence about module template reinstall is tersely worded and slightly obscure, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the error case, and the return shape, and annotations cover safety. Only minor gaps remain (permissions/authorization requirements on the automation), so it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters. The description goes slightly further by spelling out the exact-once completeness constraint and the consequence of violating it, which the schema does not state.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Replace the display order of this automation's Policy sections.' This unambiguously separates it from the config-section siblings (addConfigSection, removeConfigSection, renameConfigSection, listConfigSections) without needing to name them.

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 gives a clear calling condition: keys must contain every section key exactly once, and it explains the failure mode when that condition is violated (a 400 naming what is missing, unknown or repeated). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as renameConfigSection, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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