nodes_reorder_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not explain permissions, reversibility, or the confirmation/preview flow; the schema's confirm field describes some of that, but the description itself does not.

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 very short and does not ramble, but it is more under-specified than concise. It leads with the HTTP path rather than the action, and the 'Tags: Nodes Controller' line adds little decision value.

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 mutation tool with a required nested body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how ordering works, whether the array replaces all positions, or when confirmation is required.

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%, and the description adds no meaning about the nested body, the nodes array, uuid, or viewPosition. The confirm parameter has schema-level explanation, but the central reorder payload is left entirely to the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Reorder nodes'. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling reorder tools beyond the resource name.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent information is the HTTP endpoint and a boilerplate tag.

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