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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely important behavioral constraint that the body must contain ALL stop ids in the new order, which tells the agent this is a full-ordering replacement rather than a single move. It omits only minor details like failure modes.

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 terse sentences with no waste and the core constraint front-loaded. The telegraphic "Params: ..." style is efficient though slightly clipped.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the key mutation constraint but leaves the agent without usage context (when to prefer this over update_template_schedule_stop) or error/precondition behavior.

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 carry the load. It names both parameters (id uuid, body.ids array) and the critical semantics of ids (all stops, in new order), but adds no format detail beyond the schema types and never explains what the top-level id identifies.

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 schedule stops") that clearly separates it from sibling reorder tools like reorder_slides or reorder_trip_items. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the domain specificity is enough for an agent to identify it.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not distinguish this from update_template_schedule_stop (single-stop edit) versus this full-reorder operation. 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.