reorder_columns

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds the key behavioral trait beyond annotations: this is a full-set overwrite operation — every column id must be supplied — which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

One sentence of roughly twenty words, action front-loaded, with zero redundancy. The behavioral requirement ('Pass every column id in the wanted order') earns its place alongside the cross-reference to get_board_schema.

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 simple three-scalar-param tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the action, the full-set invocation requirement, and where to obtain valid column IDs. Annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps such as error behavior for invalid or omitted column IDs are acceptable at this complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the critical parameter: columnIds is disclosed as an ordered, complete list of column IDs, with get_board_schema named as the valid-value source. The bare schema only says 'array of strings, minItems 1,' missing that order matters. projectId and boardId are self-evident from their names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the display order of a board's columns.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like update_column (which edits column properties), create_column, and delete_column, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 implies usage context by requiring the full set of column IDs and cross-referencing get_board_schema as the source, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_column. The workflow is implied rather than spelled out.

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