node_plugin_reorder_node_plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and fails it. The 'POST' verb is the only behavioral signal, implying a write/mutation, but the description says nothing about the required confirm:true confirmation flow, permissions, whether ordering is partial or must cover all plugins, or what the preview response contains — all of which live only in the schema.

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 text is short, but it is raw OpenAPI boilerplate: endpoint path plus 'Tags: Node Plugins Controller' is noise that earns no place. It is not misleading, just under-loaded rather than truly concise in the informative sense.

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 nested-body mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. The agent is not told the ordering semantics, the confirmation requirement (beyond the schema), or the effect of the operation, so it cannot invoke the tool confidently.

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% (only 'confirm' is documented) and the description compensates for none of the gap. It never mentions that the body requires an array of {uuid, viewPosition} items or explains the semantics of viewPosition as a relative ordering index, which is the core input meaning an agent must understand.

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 names a verb and resource ('Reorder Node Plugins') plus the HTTP route, which is enough to know it mutates plugin ordering. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no explanation of what 'reorder' does (ordering by viewPosition index) and no differentiation from sibling reorder tools like nodes_reorder_nodes, hosts_reorder_hosts, or config_profile_reorder_config_profiles.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as node_plugin_update_config. The only usage hint anywhere is the schema-level 'confirm' parameter note, which is not part of the description text. The agent gets no routing information from the description itself.

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