Reorder monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – that this is a full-list replacement where every monitor must appear exactly once – but does not say what happens to ordering-dependent behavior (e.g., active alerts or in-flight evaluations) after reordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the call constraint immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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. For a mutation tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description supplies the essential calling contract (full-list, exactly-once) plus account scoping via the schema. Nothing critical 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 50%: X-Orchestra-Account-Id is fully documented in the schema, but monitorIds (array of uuid4) has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining the array's semantics – it must contain every monitor exactly once and its index becomes each monitor's order position.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set the evaluation order of the workspace's monitors'), which clearly separates it from sibling mutations like update_monitor (field edits) and reads like list_monitors. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is for bulk reordering rather than editing a single monitor. The 'must name every monitor exactly once' constraint is a real precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as update_monitor.

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