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

Annotations already establish mutation-without-destruction (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds real behavioral depth beyond them: horizon pins override ordered_ids position, unknown or de-queued ids are skipped, duplicates are rejected, and the returned shape is disclosed. It stops short of noting the non-idempotency implication or any permission/rate constraints, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by tightly packed semantics; nearly every sentence carries information the agent needs. The cadence/priority_int aside is slightly tangential but directly explains why order matters, so no serious bloat.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers ordering semantics, pin precedence, invalid-id handling, and validation rules — enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor (project_id meaning, failure/permission behavior) since the output schema already covers return shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does for the non-trivial parameter, explaining that `ordered_ids` is a front-to-back list where the first id becomes highest priority, with skip and duplicate-rejection rules. `project_id` is never explained in either schema or description, leaving one of two required params opaque.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+outcome ('Change what gets built first') and names the exact resource and mechanism (`ordered_ids` ordering of queued roadmap-item ids). It also references the sibling that produces those ids (list_roadmap), letting an agent separate it from neighbors like cancel_roadmap_item or set_product_goal.

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 makes the usage context inferable ('use list_roadmap to obtain ids, then pass the desired order') and states ordering semantics, but never says explicitly when to reorder versus other roadmap-mutating siblings such as cancel_roadmap_item, rearm_roadmap_item, or set_product_goal, and offers no when-not guidance.

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