conduyt_set_smart_dialing_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive-ish side effect ('the server rebuilds the account-wide view order'), the safety property ('views that are not priorities keep their slots'), an admin-key/auth requirement, and a strict input invariant ('every dial-enabled view exactly once, nothing else'). What is not covered is error behavior when the invariant is violated, or what an empty/partial list yields.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the scoping constraint and admin-key note come first, the side-effect/validation rules second, the sibling routing last. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information the 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers everything material: auth requirement, input completeness invariant, server-side side effect on non-priority views, and the alternative tool. The lack of return-value documentation is not a gap because no output schema exists and the operation is a reorder.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the array must be a complete enumeration of dial-enabled views with no extras, and that non-listed views retain their slots. It restates ordering (schema already says 'first = dialed first'), but the completeness invariant is genuinely new.

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 ('Set the Smart Dialing PRIORITY order') and immediately scopes it to dial-enabled Smart Views. It explicitly distinguishes itself from conduyt_reorder_smart_views, and the surrounding siblings (conduyt_get_smart_dialing_order, conduyt_update_smart_view_dialing, conduyt_move_smart_view) are all separable from this description alone.

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?

Names the alternative ('Prefer this over conduyt_reorder_smart_views for dialing') with the condition that selects it, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It also flags an admin-key requirement. It does not, however, tell the agent to call conduyt_get_smart_dialing_order first to obtain the complete id list — that prerequisite is only implied by the schema.

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