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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: atomicity and the requirement that all lessons be present exactly once. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior on validation failure, or any side effects, which would improve transparency 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with no redundant words. Every clause adds value: atomicity, full order, and the exact-once constraint.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral constraint. It could mention the requirement that the module exists or what happens if validation fails, but the description is largely complete for the tool's 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 compensate. It effectively explains lesson_ids as 'the desired final order' and stresses that every lesson must appear exactly once, adding meaning beyond the raw UUID array type. module_id is self-evident from the context and tool name.

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 specific verb ('Set') and resource ('full lesson order within a module'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like update_module. It also adds scope by specifying 'one atomic call' and the exact-once requirement for lessons.

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 tells when to use this tool: to set the full lesson order for a module. It provides a key usage constraint (every lesson must appear exactly once) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the unique name and sibling context make this less critical.

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