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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add the priority-assignment model (1...N continuous, index 0 = highest), but it does not say whether omitted rule IDs are reassigned, dropped, or rejected — a meaningful omission for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the semantics that matter; nothing redundant or padded.

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 destructive, all-required 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the mechanics but leaves open whether the supplied list must be exhaustive and what happens to rules not included. That gap matters for correct and safe invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by pinning the ordinal mapping (array index 0 maps to priority 1, continuous 1-based), which removes ambiguity about how ordering translates to stored priorities.

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: "Reorder rules by specifying rule IDs in desired order." An agent can tell this apart from generic update/create siblings, though nothing distinguishes it explicitly from lexq_groups_reorder or lexq_rules_update.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (you supply rule IDs in the order you want), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus lexq_rules_update, nor any stated precondition such as requiring a draft version or full rule set.

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