reorder_documentsSet the sort order of documents in one atomic transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| updates | Yes | The documents whose order changed, as { id, order }. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to rehash destructiveness. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the operation is atomic, implying all order changes succeed or fail together. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action, the target resource, and the atomicity guarantee while remaining highly readable. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the presence of a rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (atomicity) without duplicating structured information. It could theoretically mention that only changed documents need to be included, but the updates property description already covers that, so 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both projectId and updates, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but not a value-add.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('set the sort order of documents') and adds an important qualifier ('in one atomic transaction'). This distinguishes it from broader document mutation tools like update_document by focusing on ordering behavior, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 clearly implies the tool is for changing document sort order, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_document or create_document. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or sibling differentiation beyond the semantic meaning of 'sort order'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.
40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.
Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.