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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the body must contain ALL stop ids in the new order, meaning a partial list is not a valid reorder. It does not say what happens on omission, duplicates, or unknown ids, nor what entity the top-level 'id' refers to.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the parameter contract. No filler, though the 'Params:' notation is terse and somewhat telegraphic rather than naturally phrased.

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 description covers the core contract for a two-parameter nested-body mutation. Gaps remain around target identification (which id), error behavior when ids are incomplete or unknown, and scope of side effects, which matter for a reorder operation on a template.

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, and it does add the crucial semantic missing from the schema: the ids array is positional ('in the new order') and must be exhaustive ('ALL stop ids'). It does not clarify that 'id' is the template id (vs. a stop id) or the maxItems behavior, but the ordering semantics are the highest-value missing piece.

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 and resource ('Reorder schedule stops'), which is precise enough that an agent can map it to the template schedule stop collection. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling reorder tools (reorder_slides, reorder_template_info_cards, reorder_program_items), though the resource name and the 'template schedule stop' phrasing carry most of the differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'ALL stop ids, in the new order' note signals that this is a full-replacement ordering operation, so an agent can infer it should not be used for partial moves or single-item updates. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer update_template_schedule_stop or add/delete stop instead.

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