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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description contributes only the hint that the operation covers all modules or lessons at once, which implies existing positions may be overwritten; it says nothing about atomicity, partial-list handling, or required permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing about parameter roles or ordering semantics is included. Additionally, the description is in French while the tool name, title and schema are in English.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough — the agent cannot determine how to map 'id' versus 'ids' or what a successful reorder guarantees. The annotations cover safety but not the semantics this tool needs.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails: it never explains that 'id' is the course identifier, that 'ids' is the ordered list of module/lesson identifiers, or that 'kind' selects which of the two collections is being reordered. Only the modules/lessons distinction is loosely mirrored from the enum.

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 ('Réordonner') and the resource ('tous les modules ou leçons d'une formation'), so the agent knows it rewrites the ordering of a course's modules or lessons. It does not name a sibling it contrasts with (e.g. move_slide, update_collection_row), so differentiation comes only from the resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (course ownership, published vs draft state), and no alternative named. The word 'tous' hints that the caller must supply the complete ordering, but this is inference rather than guidance.

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