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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context by making clear this is a full reorder requiring all step ids in the target order, which is the key trait an agent must know before calling.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the input requirement immediately after. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: it is a full ordering replacement and requires every step id. It omits edge-case behavior (what happens to steps not included, ordering validation failures), which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 50% - tourId is documented in the schema but stepIds has no property description. The description compensates by explaining that stepIds is the complete, ordered list of ids, which is exactly the missing semantic. It does not clarify the 'ids do tour' wording versus step ids, a minor ambiguity.

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: 'Define a nova ordem dos passos' tells the agent this rewrites step ordering for a tour, which clearly separates it from add_step, delete_step, and update_step. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.

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?

The second sentence gives an operational instruction ('envie todos os ids do tour, na ordem desejada'), which implies the usage pattern of a full-replacement reorder. However there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like update_step, so the routing signal is only implied.

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