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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the body must contain ALL slide ids of the template, in the new order, with no duplicates — a full-replacement ordering contract an agent could easily get wrong.

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 compact sentences, action and the critical ordering constraint front-loaded, zero filler. Everything written 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a 2-parameter mutation with a nested body, the description supplies the one detail that matters most (full ordered, deduplicated list), leaving nothing essential 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it maps 'id (uuid)' and the body shape { slideIds: [...] }, and critically explains the semantics of slideIds (complete set, ordered, deduplicated). It stops short of stating explicitly that 'id' is the template id.

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+resource ('Reorder slides') and clarifies via 'of the template' that the slides belong to a template, which helps separate it from the many reorder_* siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling it is not, so an agent still has to infer the parent entity.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must slides already exist, must you own the template), and no mention of alternative tools. The only usage signal is implied by the name.

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