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

Annotations already flag non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the consequences annotations cannot express: the top version becomes the current one, version numbers follow the order, and no media or feedback is deleted (feedback stays on its version). This is exactly the extra context needed for a mutation tool.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation, its consequences, and the undo path all appear before the pointer to contents.

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 semantics, side effects, and reversibility well. It omits failure behavior (e.g. what happens if order is missing an id or contains an invalid one) and any permission requirements, which are the remaining gaps.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: order must contain every version id of asset_id exactly once (a complete permutation, not a subset), top-first, and it states the behavioral effect of that ordering.

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 ('Set the order of an asset's versions') and immediately clarifies the effect, distinguishing it from siblings like contents (listing), versions_add, and versions_split. An agent can tell what it does 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?

Gives clear context for use and an explicit undo path ('Reorder again to undo'), plus points to contents(asset_id) as the way to obtain the version ids. It does not contrast against other ordering-adjacent siblings (e.g. versions_split), so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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