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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the edit-permission requirement and the resulting position when `before` is omitted. It does not, however, say what happens if `before` names a nonexistent sheet or what the response confirms — modest gaps given annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and the default behavior prominent. The trailing 'Signature: sheets_move(file_uuid, sheet, before?)' largely restates the input schema and is the only expendable line.

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 and full annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: the two required params, the optional positional param, and the permission requirement. Only the unhelpful silence on `file_uuid` and on error behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 67%; the schema documents `sheet` and `before`, and the description reinforces the `before` semantics ('the name of the sheet to place it immediately before; omit to move it to the end'). The undocumented `file_uuid` is passed through in the signature without explanation, though its name is self-evident.

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 ('Reorders a sheet') and names the operation the sibling sheets_* tools do not cover (move/reposition rather than rename, duplicate, delete). An agent can distinguish it from sheets_rename or sheets_duplicate from the first sentence alone.

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?

Includes the operational precondition ('Requires edit permission') and clarifies the key decision — whether to supply `before` or omit it to append to the end. There is no true alternative tool to route to, so the absence of explicit exclusions is minor.

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