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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the reordering effect and positional outcomes, but says nothing about permissions, what happens to existing edges, or error behavior for an invalid sibling key.

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-loads the core operation before the parameter mechanics, and every sentence carries meaning. Slightly dense with repeated key terminology, but no wasted 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 focused, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and an annotation-declared safety profile, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. Only edge cases (invalid sibling, cross-parent moves) remain unaddressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented with the same before/after semantics. The description largely restates this and only adds the combined case ('both null appends at the end'), which is one genuine increment over the schema.

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 (an item among its siblings in a bundle) and disambiguates 'bundle' with a parenthetical definition. An agent can distinguish this from muninn_bundle_edge_add/remove and muninn_artifact_move 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?

The description explains the semantics of beforeKey/afterKey, which implies when to use the tool, but never explicitly contrasts it with sibling reorder/edge tools such as muninn_bundle_edge_add or muninn_artifact_move, nor does it state prerequisites or failure conditions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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