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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: "NO notification is sent." That is exactly the kind of side-effect detail structured fields cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether an incomplete id list errors or silently drops stops.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then params, then the side-effect caveat. No filler and nothing a caller must read twice.

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. For a nested-body mutation the critical remaining gap is failure semantics on an incomplete itemIds list, plus the mild terminology drift between "trip stops" and the sibling naming convention of "trip items."

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 both parameters are nested (body.itemIds), so the description must compensate; it does by documenting id as a uuid and spelling out the body shape as { itemIds: [...] } with the ordering contract. It omits the maxItems=2000 ceiling and the uuid format constraint, which the schema does at least encode structurally.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Reorder trip stops") that an agent can immediately separate from reorder_program_items, reorder_slides and other reorder siblings. The scope is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 phrase "ALL item ids, in the new order" is a real usage constraint that tells the agent the list must be complete and order-defining, which prevents a common misuse. It never states when to use this versus update_trip_item (single position change) or what happens on a partial list, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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