update_magic_dash_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the action (updating positions) but omits important behavioral details such as whether all positions are overwritten, how unlisted items are handled, idempotency, or any side effects. The mutation nature is implied but not deeply disclosed.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool is relatively simple and the schema covers inputs well, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify return values or provide caveats about the reordering behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents company_id and positions in detail. The description adds minimal context ('multiple' and 'for a company') but does not enhance understanding of the parameter structure beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Reorder' and clearly identifies the resource (Magic Dash Items) and scope (for a company). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upsert and delete by focusing on position updates.

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?

The description implies the usage context (reordering positions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like upsert_magic_dash or delete_magic_dash, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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