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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond this by stating that the tool replaces the entire column order and 'moves in any task not already on that status,' clarifying the scope of mutation. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but these are not critical for a reorder 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 sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear semantic clarification and a note about what it does not do. 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?

Given no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the essential behavior, including the 'replace entire column' semantic and the movement of tasks into the status. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens to tasks currently on the status that are not in taskIds, but the description implies they will no longer have that status. This is adequate for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that taskIds is 'the full ordered list of tasks that should end up with the given status' and that the operation replaces the whole column order, which is more specific than the schema's description. It also clarifies the status parameter's role.

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 specific action ('Set the complete drag-and-drop order for one status column') and identifies the resource ('one status column'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reorder_standalone_statuses (which reorders columns) and update_standalone_task (which updates task fields) by emphasizing the 'complete' ordering scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: when setting the entire order of a status column, and explicitly contrasts it with single-task repositioning ('it does not reposition a single task relative to its neighbors'). However, it does not name specific sibling tools or provide exhaustive when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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