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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds useful details: no AI generation, deterministic behavior, order must be a complete permutation, and source_stage returns 409 when stale. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences communicate the operation, key constraints, determinism, and error behavior without fluff. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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?

The description is complete for a mutation tool with strong annotations: it explains the operation, ordering constraint, deterministic behavior, and stale-version handling. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the remaining gaps—such as explicit sibling routing or per-field semantics—are minor.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning. It clarifies items (replace by id), order (complete permutation of resulting ids), and source_stage (stale-version conflict). It does not explain every individual item field or top-level action/resource constants, but those are structurally evident from 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: replace draft job skills by id and/or reorder them with an order array. It distinguishes this from sibling add/delete/clear/generate skills tools, especially by adding 'deterministic, no AI generation' to contrast with generation-based tools.

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 conveys that this tool is for manual, deterministic rewriting or reordering of draft skills, which implies it is the edit operation rather than add/delete/generate. It does not explicitly name those sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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