Reorder or annotate list entries

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait not captured in annotations: 'Pass the FULL ordered set of entry ids — anything omitted may be dropped.' This warns about destructive replacement semantics, adding essential context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core action, the second delivers a critical warning, and the third provides a source and use case. No redundancy or filler.

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 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, prerequisites, and failure semantics. Nothing important 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics about the 'entries' parameter: it must be the full ordered set and omitted ids may be dropped, going beyond the schema's positional description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the order of a list's entries, and optionally a note on each.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_list or delete_list.

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 provides context on when to use it ('Most useful for ranked lists') and a prerequisite (entry ids come from get_list). It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for basic tool selection.

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