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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the key behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: step_ids must contain exactly the current steps, no missing or extra ids — revealing this is a whole-collection replace rather than an incremental 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the constraint and the prerequisite. 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essential call contract and the exact-match constraint. It could note what happens if the id set mismatches (error) but otherwise nothing an agent needs is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning by stressing that the list must match the current step set exactly and ordering semantics ('desired order'). It does not clarify error behavior when the set mismatches.

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 all of a sequence's steps') and clarifies the one-call, whole-sequence scope. This distinguishes it cleanly from meisa_add_sequence_step, meisa_update_sequence_step, and meisa_delete_sequence_step.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain prerequisites ('Get the current step ids from meisa_get_sequence first') and states the completeness requirement for the input. It stops short of naming a when-not-to-use case, but the context is clear.

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