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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description confirms a mutation ('Move') without contradicting them and adds the get_profile prerequisite. It does not disclose the key behavioral question for a reorder operation — whether intervening blocks shift up or down, and whether positions are validated against the current block count.

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?

Two short sentences: the action first, the prerequisite second. No hedging, no redundant restatement of the tool name, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations supplying the destructive profile, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the shift semantics of a reorder, which materially affects what an agent should expect after the call and is not inferable from schema or annotations.

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 100%, so both 'from' and 'to' are already documented as 0-based indices in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'from one position to another' merely restates that without adding index-bounds behavior or what happens on an out-of-range value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Move a block') plus the mechanism ('from one position to another'), which is far more than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling update_block, which could plausibly also change a block's placement.

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?

It gives concrete sequencing guidance: call get_profile first to learn current positions before reordering. That is a real prerequisite an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternative tool or condition where reorder_blocks is the wrong choice versus update_block.

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