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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the mutation is partial ('Other images keep their relative order'), and it requires a connected account plus the catalog:write OAuth scope. It doesn't cover failure behavior or whether all images must be supplied, which keeps it below a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering semantics before the prerequisites. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the mutation's partial-reorder semantics and the auth/tier prerequisites an agent needs before calling. Edge cases such as unknown or already-first image IDs and error behavior are left unstated but are minor for this complexity.

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 clarify that the supplied imageIds determine placement order and that referenceId targets exactly one owned listing or profile. It never explicitly states that referenceId is the listing/profile ID matching the type enum, leaving one small gap.

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 and resource ('Place selected images first ... on one owned listing or profile') with the exact scope: a single owned listing or profile. That distinguishes it cleanly from sibling read tools like list_images, get_image, and update_listing 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?

The description supplies prerequisites (connected account, catalog:write scope, tier limits) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as update_listing or when not to call it. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly guided.

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