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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: position 1 appears first, IDs not belonging to the product are ignored, bulk execution is supported, and the 'write products' scope is required. It does not detail the output or what happens to omitted order bumps, but it provides solid behavioral context.

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 compact, front-loads the core operation, and every sentence adds value: main behavior, ordering rule, invalid-ID handling, scope requirement, and bulk support. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The definition is complete enough for the agent to call the tool correctly: it explains the required payload, ordering semantics, tolerated invalid IDs, required permission scope, and bulk option. Missing output details and account parameter semantics are minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 compensates well: it explains the items structure ({order_bump_id, position}), the meaning of position, the product_id/product_ids distinction, and the bulk behavior. The optional 'account' parameter is not explained, preventing a 5.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Reordena os order bumps de um produto'), states the complete-list semantics, and clarifies positional ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cakto_order_bumps_update, create, get, and list.

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?

It clearly explains when to use it: to reorder order bumps for a product in a single call, passing the full list of {order_bump_id, position}. It also adds practical context like required scope and bulk execution via product_ids, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives.

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