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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by stating that the call replaces the entire order and that statusIds must be the complete existing set. It does not describe error behavior or permissions, but the central behavioral nuance is well disclosed.

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 filler. The primary action is stated first, and the critical requirement is front-loaded in the second sentence, making the most important usage constraint immediately visible.

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 reorder operation with complete schema coverage, the description fully conveys the required input semantics and the operation's effect. No output schema exists, and none is needed to use the tool correctly; the return value is not essential for 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?

Both parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is solid. The tool description adds extra meaning by clarifying that statusIds must be 'existing' and that the operation 'replaces the whole order,' which strengthens understanding beyond the schema's phrasing.

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 action ('Reorder') on a specific resource ('a project's status columns') and distinguishes the operation from moving a single status. The name and title also align, and the sibling reorder_standalone_tasks makes the resource difference clear.

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 makes it clear what the tool does and emphasizes the complete-set requirement, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as distinguishing from reorder_standalone_tasks or update_standalone_status.

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