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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the actions without mentioning side effects, partial vs full updates, or auth requirements. It does not explain how sort_order changes affect other modules or whether the update is idempotent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a helpful pointer to an alternative tool. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to attempt invocation: required id, optional title/sort_order. However, it omits behavioral details like return format, error conditions, and effects on module ordering, making it minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The description adds meaning by mapping 'rename' to the title parameter and 'reorder' to the sort_order parameter, which helps beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain the id parameter semantics or clarify sort_order behavior (e.g., 0-based, conflicts) since schema coverage is 0%.

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 renames or reorders a module, using specific verbs and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hivelearn_reorder_module_lessons by explicitly directing lesson reordering elsewhere.

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 an explicit alternative for lesson reordering ('To reorder lessons within a module use hivelearn_reorder_module_lessons'), which clarifies when not to use this tool. It does not mention prerequisites or other alternatives, but the scoping is clear.

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