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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. Beyond those, the description adds real context: the operation publishes to social accounts, the required scope/plan, and the rule that non-waiting items are left untouched. It stops short of describing return value or partial-failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded bracketed scope/side-effect tag followed by two concise, purposeful sentences and an endpoint reference. Efficient, though the bracketed syntax is slightly dense for a reader scanning for the core action.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the salient agent needs: what changes, what does not change, auth/scope requirements, and the side effect of publishing. Nothing critical to 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does clarify itemIds semantics (send every waiting id exactly once, order is meaningful), which is valuable, but 'id' and 'brandId' remain unexplained in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific verb (reorder) and resource (waiting/queued items), plus the precise scope: 'Send every waiting (queued) item id exactly once, in the new order.' This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like add_queue_items, remove_queue_item, and queue_item_action, which mutate the queue differently.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('Needs the publish scope (or admin) on the Agency plan or higher') and clarifies the boundary condition that only waiting items are reordered while booked/posted/failed/skipped keep their places. It does not, however, name any alternative tool (e.g. queue_item_action) for non-reorder queue changes.

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