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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule: the body must contain ALL card ids in the new order, not just the moved one. It still doesn't say what happens if the list is partial or stale.

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?

Extremely terse and front-loaded – the operative constraint (ALL ids, new order) is stated in the second half of a single compact line. There is no filler, though the dash-separated param note reads more like a schema restatement than a sentence.

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 not be explained. However, the description leaves open whether 'id' is the template id or a card id, and what failure modes exist for incorrect or partial id lists – meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with a nested body.

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% and the body is a nested object, so the description carries the burden. It correctly explains that 'body { ids: [...] }' means the complete ordered set of card ids, which is far more than the schema's bare 'array of uuid, minItems 1'. The 'id' parameter is only restated as uuid, which is already in 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 name and description state a specific verb+resource (reorder template info cards) and clarify that the reorder is by replacement ordering. It does not mention sibling tools like reorder_program_info_cards, reorder_slides, or reorder_trip_items, so an agent must infer the scoping from the name 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no reference to alternatives such as update_template_info_card (which would be used to change a single card) versus this full reorder. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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