internal_squad_reorder_internal_squads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only echoes the HTTP verb ('POST .../reorder') and a controller tag. It says nothing about permissions required, whether the items list must be exhaustive, what happens to squads not included, or reversibility of the new ordering. The schema's 'confirm' description hints at a preview behavior but that is not part of the description.

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 reorder purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but it wastes space on a literal endpoint string and a 'Tags: Internal Squads Controller' line that carry no selection value for an agent.

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 mutating tool with a nested required payload, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisite context, payload semantics, and the confirmation/preview behavior the schema implies, leaving the agent under-informed for a state-changing operation.

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 'confirm' parameter is documented, but the required nested 'items' payload (uuid + viewPosition pairs) has no textual explanation anywhere. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented items structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder internal squads', which is clear and distinct from read/update/delete siblings like internal_squad_get_internal_squads or internal_squad_update_internal_squad. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the near-identical sibling external_squad_reorder_external_squads or the many other reorder_* tools, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or which alternatives exist. The only usage-relevant text is in the schema-level 'confirm' parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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