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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real operational context beyond that: that changes can affect live output, and that the call replaces the entire existing order rather than merging into it.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the live-output warning follows immediately. The trailing 'Mirrors PATCH /api/v1/streams/{stream}/queues/{type}/reorder' is REST trivia that an MCP agent cannot act on, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 3-required-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what is replaced and the live-output consequence, which is the essential context. It omits error behavior when ids are stale or the list is partial, and any permission requirements, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, including an enum breakdown of every queue 'type' value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only added nuance is 'full ordered list', which reinforces the replacement semantics of 'order' but adds no format, id-validity, or completeness rules beyond the schema.

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 ('Replace a stream queue's playback order') and qualifies the input as a 'full ordered list of item ids', which implicitly separates it from the incremental add_to_stream_queue / remove_from_stream_queue siblings. An agent can tell replace-semantics from append/remove-semantics without opening any schema.

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 never says when to choose this tool over add_to_stream_queue, remove_from_stream_queue, or play_stream_queue_item, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether the queue or stream must be active. 'Queue changes can affect live output' is a caution, not usage routing.

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