move_modifier

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false; the description adds no further behavior beyond the core reordering action. It does not explain side effects (e.g., how other modifiers shift, whether validation occurs, or behavior for out-of-range indices). With annotations so sparse, the description carries the burden but doesn't disclose more than the literal operation.

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?

A single six-word sentence that is immediately scannable and front-loads the core behavior. There is no fluff or repetition of schema field names.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, missing details matter. The description doesn't specify index base (0-based vs 1-based), whether the modifier must already exist, or what happens if the index is out of range. An agent can probably invoke it with the three required parameters, but correctness under edge cases is unclear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'target index' as an implicit reference to the index parameter. The meanings of object_name, modifier_name, and the base/ordering convention of index are left to inference from parameter names. No explicit parameter guidance is provided.

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 ('Reorder') and resource ('modifier stack') with a destination ('target index'). It is distinct from sibling tools like add_modifier, remove_modifier, set_modifier_params, apply_modifier, and list_modifiers, which address other lifecycle/query operations. The description does not explicitly name the modifier or object parameters, which are only visible in the schema, so it stops short of a fully unambiguous statement.

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 alternatives. It never mentions that reordering is needed to change stack evaluation order or contrasts with set_modifier_params or list_modifiers. The only usage signal is the verb 'Reorder', which implies the operation but offers no contextual conditions or exclusions.

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