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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is 'deterministic, no AI generation' (important for an agent deciding whether to use this vs generate_competencies), it updates in place keeping the item id, and it returns 409 when stale if source_stage is provided. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concurrency behavior and the in-place semantics, which are valuable.

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 is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Replace draft competencies by id and/or reorder them with order'), then adds the deterministic note, the in-place behavior, and the concurrency option. Every clause earns 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it does, how ordering works, the deterministic nature, and the stale-version failure mode. It doesn't explain the full item schema (e.g., which fields are updatable), but the input schema already enumerates those fields. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explains the meaning of 'items' (draft competencies to replace by id), 'order' (a complete permutation of resulting ids), and 'source_stage' (optimistic concurrency check returning 409 when stale). It doesn't detail every field inside items (name, title, details, etc.), but the core parameters are semantically clarified, which is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 ('Replace draft competencies by id and/or reorder them with order') and a specific resource ('draft competencies'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_competencies, delete_competencies, and clear_competencies by emphasizing in-place update and reordering. The title 'Rewrite or reorder draft competencies' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to modify existing competencies in a draft (rewrite or reorder) rather than add or delete them. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like add_competencies or delete_competencies, but the verb 'replace' and 'reorder' plus the sibling context make the usage context clear. It also mentions the optional source_stage for optimistic concurrency, which is a usage condition.

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