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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious side effect ('its clips are re-laid out in the new order'), but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens when expectedVersion does not match.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetically adds the clip re-layout consequence. No filler, though a single clause about the version check would have been worth the extra length.

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?

This is a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, so the description must explain behavior and parameters almost alone. It covers the reorder concept but leaves the concurrency contract and the failure mode on version mismatch unexplained, which is inadequate for the complexity.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate entirely. It implies the roles of shotId and newOrder, but gives no meaning for projectId and completely omits expectedVersion, which is the most semantically opaque parameter (an optimistic-concurrency token) and the one most likely to cause a failed call.

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 ('Move a shot to a new position within its scene') and scopes it to the parent scene, which implicitly separates it from scene.reorder and track.reorder. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the hierarchy distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite scene.reorder and track.reorder offering parallel reordering at other levels. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Move'.

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