config_profile_reorder_config_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'reorder' (implying a mutation of ordering state) but does not disclose whether items must be exhaustive, whether partial lists are allowed, whether viewPosition values must be unique/contiguous, or that reordering affects downstream config resolution. The confirm/dry-run behavior is only documented in the schema, not here.

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?

Very short, but front-loads the raw endpoint and a 'Tags: Config Profiles Controller' line that consume space without helping selection. The actual purpose sentence is buried behind protocol noise.

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?

A nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema requires more disclosure: ordering semantics, required payload shape, and effect on existing profile order are all missing. The confirm semantics are only in the schema, leaving the description inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: the nested body.items[].uuid and viewPosition have no descriptions at all, and the description adds no meaning beyond their types. Only the confirm parameter is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema rather than the description, so nothing is compensated for the undocumented half.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder config profiles'. Clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it offers no differentiation from the many sibling reorder tools (nodes_reorder_nodes, hosts_reorder_hosts, internal_squad_reorder_internal_squads, etc.). The HTTP method/path prefix adds nothing to purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus config_profile_update_config_profile or the other reorder tools. No prerequisites, no mention of whether the payload must contain the full ordered set of profiles. The agent must infer everything.

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