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 safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact: no notification is sent to participants, which is not derivable from annotations and matters for agents reasoning about side effects.

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?

Three terse clauses, front-loaded with the action, then parameters, then the side-effect caveat. Zero filler; every phrase carries information.

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 described. The description covers the action, required inputs, ordering semantics, and the notification behavior. It omits preconditions (e.g., must the trip be unpublished, do ids need to match existing items), which would round it out for a mutation tool with a nested required object.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does map both required params (id, body.itemIds) and clarifies the critical semantics of itemIds — it must be the complete ordered list. It does not restate the uuid format, but that is inferable from 'id (uuid)' and the schema pattern.

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 trip stops'), and the sibling set contains several parallel reorder_* tools, so the resource disambiguation is implicit in the name. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from reorder_program_items or reorder_slides, but an agent can tell which domain this operates on.

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 adds an important usage rule — the body must contain ALL item ids in the new order, not just the moved ones — which is genuine operational guidance. It says nothing about prerequisites (ownership, draft state) or when to prefer this over update_trip_item.

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