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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: priority is auto-assigned and appended last, the tenant-wide cap of 20 non-ARCHIVED groups, and the cluster constraint that groups sharing an activationGroup must share mode/strategy/executionLimit. It does not describe error responses or what happens on cap violation, 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the required field, then escalating to optional fields and constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information; the trailing cap/cluster sentence is long though warranted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing operational context: auto-assigned priority, the quota, and the inter-parameter cluster constraint. Only error/failure behavior remains unstated, which is a minor gap.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by disclosing a cross-parameter constraint (groups sharing an activationGroup must share activationMode/activationStrategy/executionLimit) and by clarifying that executionLimit counts groups rather than rules. That added semantic layer justifies 4.

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 ('Create a new policy group') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming lexq_groups_reorder as the tool for changing order. An agent can distinguish it from lexq_groups_update, lexq_groups_delete and lexq_groups_get without opening any 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 usage context: priority is auto-assigned and reorder is the alternative tool, optional fields are enumerated, and the 20-group cap with an archive-to-free-a-slot hint tells the agent when this call will fail. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., prefer update for existing groups), which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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