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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the operation is a full-list replacement, partial/invalid input is rejected with the current order returned, and matching normalizes case and whitespace. It does not state whether changes are reversible or how the response is shaped, but the destructive semantics are clear from 'Sets the order of all properties'.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then input contract, then failure/auth constraints. No filler and every sentence carries a distinct requirement.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, input completeness, matching rules, rejection behavior, and auth requirements. Minor gaps remain around the response body and whether the prior order can be restored, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying that place_names must be the COMPLETE list and that matching is case- and whitespace-insensitive, which materially affects how the agent constructs the array.

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 ('Sets the order') and resource ('all properties on the selected wedding's guest site and accommodation screen'), and no sibling tool competes with reordering, so the agent can place it immediately. Scope is limited to the selected wedding, which is a meaningful qualifier.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions (sign-in, Aisle membership) and the failure mode for partial or invalid lists, which tells the agent what inputs are acceptable. It does not name an alternative or explicitly say when-not-to-use, but no sibling offers a competing reorder capability.

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