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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: horizon pins override the supplied order, unknown or no-longer-queued ids are silently skipped, duplicates are rejected, and the response shape is provided. This gives the agent a accurate mental model of side effects even though the write-related annotations are minimal.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by adding behavioral detail. The minor typo 'lowest-priority_int' slightly interrupts readability, but the structure and focus remain strong.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers ordering rules, edge cases, and return value shape. The annotations and output schema cover safety and result structure, while the description fills the behavioral gaps an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 description thoroughly explains `ordered_ids`, including ordering semantics, priority direction, pin interactions, duplicate handling, and unknown-id behavior. `project_id` is not elaborated, but it is a common identifier parameter and appears in the required schema. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is strong compensation overall.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change what gets built first') and then explains the effect on queued roadmap items. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_roadmap and cancel_roadmap_item by focusing on ordering rather than listing, creating, or removing.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to change build priority order. It also tells the agent where to get the required ids ('get them from list_roadmap'). It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives such as rearm_roadmap_item or cancel_roadmap_item, so it stops short of a full 5.

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