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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context at all. For a reorder operation the crucial behavior — whether cardIds must enumerate every card or whether omitted cards are appended/dropped — is unstated.

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?

Short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence merely paraphrases the input schema rather than adding meaning. It is efficient in size but not in information density.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a two-parameter nested mutation with 0% schema coverage the description leaves the central question (ordering semantics and completeness of cardIds) unanswered. It is too thin for this tool's complexity.

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% and the body is a nested object, so the description must carry the semantic load. It only restates the schema shape ('id (uuid) + body { cardIds: [...] }') without explaining that array order defines the new ordering, or whether the list must be exhaustive.

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 (reorder) and resource (program info cards), which distinguishes it from update_program_info_card and delete_program_info_card. It does not, however, distinguish it from the other reorder siblings (reorder_program_items, reorder_template_info_cards), which the agent must infer from the resource noun 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or precondition. Nothing tells the agent when a reorder is appropriate instead of an update, or that the program must already have these cards.

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