One sensible order is to figure generalized wind patterns first - they can be based on nothing more than axial tilt and land placement. One figures a N. hemisphere summer then a N. hemisphere winter set, then overlaying the two, what places plausibly would have prevailing winds from a similar direction most of the year. That air movement will by surface drag either create or strongly influence surface ocean currents. I'll note here that oceans have multiple layers of currents, and nobody, but nobody wants to model the lower ones too. Well, that statement could sound like "I dare you" to SOMEbody, just not to me :-). Your continental shelves could influence currents, or not -- surface currents honestly might only reach a hundred or two hundred meters down. Contrary airflow based on season could weaken a tendency of an ocean current to slosh >that< direction, or in certain interactions of land shape vs. seasonal air shifts, could even reverse a current regularly. And all the talk of seasonal generalities of airflow don't take into account that weather is a whole 'nother set of variables laid on top of the seasonal stuff. Don't let that added complexity bother you - call it freedom, not restriction.... you need such-and-such mounted party to get hit with a storm just >there< in their trek, there's plenty of ways to make that happen :-). The climate generalities might dictate whether it's a hurricane, a predictable monsoon, a tornado, or a dust storm, true...

All that fun stuff can give the people living atop this landscape better ways to travel or could block reaching what might otherwise be nearby lands. And THAT is where stories start to grow themselves.

You already have maybe the youngest/ highest mountain ranges figured based on tectonics, and those will be the biggest barriers or funnels for moisture movement. So you *could* even go on and figure gross rainfall patterns at that point, or you could sometime before then figure where you want older mountains - fossils of previous tectonic action. Other than the drier belts/ wetter belts that you can draw *now* based on just Hadley Celleffects, a huge driver for your climate zones is going to be "lots of water gets carried thisaway, hence this is the area for forests and fertile plains," and that sort of thing.

A fun thing to consider is that all the rule-of-thumb climate stuff is "before human effects". Whatever dry tendencies existed in the middle of Africa, desertification there has been accelerated by overgrazing and woodcutting. The eastern USA on a simple climate model might show a likelihood of great swaths of forests... which is about how it was before settlers cut down nine of every ten trees. (98 of every hundred?)

Currents in ocean and atmosphere will shove around a lot of heat, and provide oceanic moisture somewhere interesting to go. Examples are the warm Gulf Stream in the Atlantic keeping icebergs *somewhat* at bay, and providing coastal northwest Europe with a bit warmer climate than latitude might suggest. And whatever weird thing goes on in alternate years with El Nino and La Nina Pacific currents -- from weather all the way down to good years/ lousy years for certain fishing grounds, as the same part of an ocean gets washed by nutrient-rich water, or by more sterile water.

Boil that down to : I'd suggest generalized winds, then general currents, then climate zones. Stick extra/older mountains and hills in, wherever in that process you like. Think *slightly* from your tectonics where a widespread uplift or subsidence might be happening - that'll give you some nice drowned coast and high plateau stuff. Those could be extras - ignore if you like since you already have plenty of complexity going on.

And when the complexity that you're indulging in overwhelms you, go out and play a game of handball, or bike thirty km, or whatever you use for alternate activity. Tell yourself "this'll go better with more oxygen in my brain - yeah, that's the ticket!" :-)