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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — the payload must be the complete ordered set, not a partial patch — but says nothing about what happens to cards omitted from the list, whether cross-template ids are rejected, or the failure mode.

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 short sentences, the operation front-loaded, and the parameter contract compressed into a single clause. Nothing is repeated and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

With an output schema and annotations carrying safety and return shape, the description covers the essentials for a reorder call. It is still thin on validation behavior and on what the parent id refers to, which for a nested-body mutation tool is a meaningful omission but not a blocking one.

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 has to carry the load. It does explain the important semantic that array position defines the new order and minItems/maxItems aside must be exhaustive, but the top-level "id" is only restated as "id (uuid)" with no indication that it is the template id — that ambiguity is left open.

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 plus resource ("Reorder info cards"), so the operation is immediately legible. It does not mention that this applies to *template* info cards specifically, so it fails to differentiate from the sibling reorder_program_info_cards, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name for that distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this versus reorder_program_info_cards, reorder_slides, or update_template_info_card, and no prerequisites or permissions are mentioned. The only implied guidance is the note that the body must carry ALL card ids, which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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