reorder_view_fields

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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing internal behavior: 'reads the view's current columnOrder, applies the moves, and sends the complete map.' It also documents a real user-edge case about the internal API rejecting single-key inputs. Since annotations only provide basic hints (idempotentHint=true), this added context significantly enhances transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of just two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second packs usage instructions, indexing rules, and a critical internal behavior note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: partial map usage, indexing, internal process, and a user-reported edge case. However, it does not describe the normal return value (only mentions debug output includes raw response). With no output schema, a brief note on what is returned in non-debug mode would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description's added value is moderate. It explains that 'fieldOrder' is a partial map and clarifies indexing, which reinforces schema info. The debug parameter's behavior is also clarified. This adds meaningful context but does not introduce entirely new parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reorder the fields (columns) displayed in a view.' It specifies that it accepts a partial map and explains indexing (index 0 is leftmost after primary field). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_visible_columns' or 'set_view_columns' by focusing on precise field ordering.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Accepts a partial map: pass only the field IDs you want to move... Other fields keep their relative order.' It also warns about the underlying internal API rejecting single-key inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_visible_columns' or 'set_view_columns', missing an opportunity to differentiate.

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