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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: priorities are assigned 1...N, 1-based and continuous, and array index 0 maps to priority 1 (highest precedence). This clarifies the exact effect of the reorder operation beyond what the annotations provide.

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 with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the priority assignment semantics are stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description covers the essential behavior: what the tool does, how priorities are assigned, and the mapping from array index to priority. The annotations cover the destructive nature. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state whether the reorder is atomic or what happens to rules not listed in ruleIds, but the continuous 1...N assignment implies all rules are reordered. This is adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (groupId, ruleIds, versionId). The description adds meaning to ruleIds by explaining the ordering semantics (index 0 = priority 1), which is useful. However, it doesn't add detail about groupId or versionId beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Reorder rules') and the mechanism ('specifying rule IDs in desired order'), which distinguishes it from rule creation, deletion, toggling, and updating. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the verb 'reorder' plus the priority semantics make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the user wants to change rule priority order. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like lexq_rules_update for other rule changes. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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