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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them: optimistic-concurrency via expectedVersion, the DECK_CONFLICT failure mode and retry protocol, and the cost ('Free'). It confirms the full-replacement nature of `order` (every slide id required), which is consistent with the destructive annotation. It doesn't say whether existing slide content/ids are preserved or what the response contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the core contract, with no filler. Every clause (order contract, version requirement, conflict handling, cost) carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive reorder with no output schema and six params, the description covers the essentials: what the argument must contain, the concurrency precondition, the failure mode and recovery, and that it costs nothing. The unmentioned params are optional and self-describing in the schema.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates for the two highest-risk params: `order` must contain every slide id in the desired sequence (a non-obvious full-replacement contract), and `expectedVersion` is mandatory with a stale value failing before any work. The three ancillary params (locale, accountHandle, projectId) are left entirely to the schema, so it is not complete.

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 ('Put the slides in a new order') and pins down the exact payload semantics (pass every slide id, in the order wanted), which separates it from the layout/edit siblings by implication. It never names antix_apply_deck_layout or antix_edit_deck_slides to draw the boundary explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 trigger phrasings ('move slide 4 to the front', 'swap slides 2 and 3') and recovery guidance for DECK_CONFLICT (re-read and repeat the same intended change). No when-not guidance or named alternative for cases where the agent may wrongly reach for this tool instead of a layout tool.

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