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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description needs to add the operational details annotations can't carry. It adds none: it doesn't say whether cardIds must be the complete set of cards or a partial subset, what happens to cards omitted from the list, or what the response contains.

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?

It is short with no filler prose, which is good, but the second half is pure duplication of the input schema and therefore earns no place. The remaining words are consequence-free rather than front-loaded with useful constraints.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested body object, an output schema, and zero schema description coverage — a configuration that demands more prose support. The description leaves the agent without the ordering contract or failure modes, so it is not sufficient to call the tool correctly from an intent like "move card X to position 2."

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 explain the two parameters, but "id (uuid) + body { cardIds: [...] }" merely echoes types already declared in the schema. The crucial semantics — whether cardIds is an ordered full replacement, whether it is limited to 2000 entries per the schema's maxItems, and what `id` identifies (program vs. card) — are unstated.

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 sentence "Reorder program info cards" restates the tool name and title verbatim, adding no discriminating detail. It gives no hint of how it differs from the very similar siblings reorder_template_info_cards, reorder_program_items, or update_program_info_card, so an agent must infer which reorder variant applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. program must be owned/editable), and no mention of when to pick reorder_program_info_cards versus reorder_template_info_cards. The only content after the first sentence is a restatement of the parameter signature.

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