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

Annotations already declare the mutation with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond them by confirming 'Content is unchanged; only the order changes' and disclosing the clamping behavior for out-of-range indices, which an agent needs to predict results. It omits what happens on an invalid/stale block_id, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and position semantics, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds usable information with no filler.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema reorder tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential context: identity of the moved item, indexing convention, clamping, and the freshness requirement. Only error/stale-id behavior is left unspecified, a minor omission.

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 block_id and to_index formats are already documented in the schema. The description essentially restates that block_id comes from meisa_get_template_blocks and that to_index is 0-based, adding provenance but no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries this load.

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 ('Reorder') and resource ('a template ... moving one block') with the exact mechanism and indexing convention. An agent can separate this from meisa_update_template_block (edit content) and meisa_reorder_sequence_steps (sequence steps, not template blocks) 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 a concrete prerequisite workflow: fetch block_id from a fresh meisa_get_template_blocks call and 'Re-read blocks right before calling this,' which names the sibling to use and warns against stale ids. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over meisa_update_template_block, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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