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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing optimistic concurrency behavior (stale revision aborts the write and returns the current revision) and the approval-gating model (readers see the last approved version until the owner approves a list update). These are exactly the mutation semantics an agent needs and are not derivable from destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and ordering contract before the failure mode. Each sentence carries weight, though the trailing 'Private lists stay private' is a slightly tangential privacy note that doesn't inform the call.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the concurrency contract, the visibility/approval consequence, and the partial return value on failure. Minor gaps remain (what happens to items omitted from `order`, the 1000-item cap), but the essentials are present.

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 real meaning: `order` must be exhaustive and ordered first-to-last, and `revision` is specifically the value returned by list_items and is used for the staleness check. That clarifies the parameters' contract beyond the schema text.

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 ('Put a list's picks in a new order'), which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'move_items', which an agent could easily confuse with a reordering operation.

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 a clear prerequisite workflow: obtain `revision` from list_items and pass every item id exactly once, first to last. The stale-revision fallback ('nothing is written and the current revision comes back') is an explicit usage condition. It stops short of naming alternatives like move_items for partial reordering.

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