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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the real behavioral content: this must be a complete-list reorder, and it is time-gated (pre-launch) and structure-gated (single group). It stops short of saying what happens if an ID is omitted or unknown, or whether the call is atomic, but it covers the constraints that most affect whether the call will succeed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the completeness requirement, then the two preconditions. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, the full-replacement requirement, and the fallback path. The only real gap is return behavior (what the form looks like after reordering, or how failures are reported), which an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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%, and the schema already says questionIds is 'the complete list of the form's questionIds in the desired order', so the description's 'Pass EVERY questionId' largely restates it. The added value is pointing at getScreeningSetup as the source, though the schema points at listProducts for productId, creating mild split guidance between the two sources.

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+resource ('Reorders the screening form questions'), which distinguishes it from updateScreeningQuestion, addScreeningQuestion, deleteScreeningQuestion and updateStepsOrder (steps, not questions). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions: only before the form is live, and only for single-group forms. It also names getScreeningSetup as the source of questionIds and routes multi-group forms to the dashboard, which is a concrete alternative path.

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