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

The annotations mark the operation as a non-destructive mutation, and the description adds important behavior beyond them: it requires edit permission and the empty-array path restores the original row order, which tells the agent that the original ordering is not lost. It does not say whether the sort is stable or whether other table properties are touched, but the core behavioral picture is covered.

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?

The description front-loads the purpose and is organized sensibly (purpose, then parameters, then behavior, then permissions). It is slightly long, and the trailing 'Signature:' line restates the schema parameter list, which is redundant, but nothing else is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to cover return values; it covers everything else an agent needs: permissions, defaults for sheet, the 0-based column convention, and the empty-array clearing semantics. Nothing essential is missing for a required-3-parameter mutation.

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 75%, with only file_uuid undescribed. The description still adds value beyond the schema: it explains that sort entries apply in priority order and that column is 0-based within the table, and it gives the cell anchor expectation, going beyond what the schema properties state.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Sorts a data table by one or more of its columns.' That differentiates it clearly from table-family siblings like files_table_insert, files_table_delete, and files_set_table_filter, which do different things to a table.

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 description gives a concrete use condition: pass an empty array to clear the sort. However, it never names an alternative (such as files_set_table_filter) or says when this tool is not appropriate, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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