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

The annotations only say the call is not read-only and not destructive; the description supplies the real behavioral contract — immediate application on draft/scheduled projects versus staging on running/paused ones, and the fact that responses carry staged rows with liveVersionId. That is substantial context beyond the annotations, though it does not address permissions or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then ordering rules, then staging behavior, then the id caveat — a logical progression with no filler sentences. The staging/id paragraph is dense and could be broken up, but no sentence is dispensable.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers ordering semantics, staging lifecycle, how to publish or revert, how to inspect staged state, id round-tripping, and the archived-project restriction. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 genuine meaning the schema lacks: taskIds defines an order and may be a subset, with omitted tasks appended in unspecified relative order. That subset/append semantics cannot be inferred from 'in the desired order' alone.

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 ('Reorders the tasks of this beta project') and immediately clarifies that it operates on task ordering rather than task content, which separates it from updateTask and updateStepsOrder among the siblings. An agent can pick this tool 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?

Explicitly allows a subset and defines the resulting order, names commitTaskChanges as the publish path and revertTaskChanges as the discard path, and points at getBetaTasks with version 'unpublished' to inspect staged state. It also states a hard exclusion: content of finished or archived beta projects cannot be edited.

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