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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavioral trait — that video and audio tracks occupy a single interleaved ordering — which is real value beyond the schema. However, for a mutation tool it says nothing about the expectedVersion concurrency contract, whether indices of other tracks shift, or what happens on a version mismatch.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The em-dash clause is short and every part of it adds decision-relevant information about index space.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four fully undocumented required parameters (0% coverage), the description should explain the version-check contract and the effect on neighboring tracks. It explains only the ordering model, leaving an agent unable to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies newOrder ('a new position among the project's tracks') and leaves the three other parameters unexplained: trackId is inferable from the verb, but expectedVersion — the most semantically loaded parameter — and projectId receive no explanation, and the optimistic-concurrency implication of expectedVersion is not disclosed.

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 track to a new position among the project's tracks. The scope qualifier ('project's tracks') separates it from scene.reorder and shot.reorder, which operate on different collections, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — you use this to reposition an existing track. The note that video and audio tracks share one ordering is genuinely useful context for deciding what index to pass, but there is no stated precondition, no exclusions, and no pointer to track.create/track.delete for structural changes.

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