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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful mutation semantics ('single batch write', updating all order values at once), but says nothing about permissions, atomicity, partial-failure behavior, or what happens to shots omitted from the list.

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, front-loaded sentences that convey the operation and its batch nature without padding. 'Efficiently' is mild promotional filler, keeping it just below a 5.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it explains the operation but omits return shape, error/conflict handling, and whether a complete shot list is required. Nothing critical is stated incorrectly, but meaningful gaps remain.

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 all three parameters and the nested shotId/order pairs are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the array represents 'all' order values, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('reorder shots') plus scope ('within an edit', 'bulk'), which is more precise than the generic siblings like update_shot or move_shot_to_scene. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Bulk' and 'all shot order values in a single batch' imply the tool is for multi-shot reordering rather than single updates, which hints at when to use it. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. update_shot, move_shot_to_scene) and states no conditions or exclusions, leaving the routing to inference.

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