Reorder nodes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that ordering is confined to the existing parent (no reparenting side effect), that the call returns per-item results where a single node failure does not fail the whole call, and which editors are supported vs unverified. With destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true already given, these added traits are exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the sibling disambiguation, return contract, and editor matrix. No filler or repeated schema content; every sentence carries distinct 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the return shape (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`) and its partial-failure semantics. Combined with scope, sibling routing, and editor support, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 75%, so the schema already documents `position`, `session`, and `idempotencyKey` in detail. The description's 'z-order' phrasing gives thematic meaning to `position` but adds no enumeration, index-syntax, or multi-node ordering semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Change z-order within each node's current parent', which immediately separates it from figma_reparent_nodes and figma_move_nodes by locking the operation to the existing parent. It also names figma_move_slides as the sibling that handles the slide case, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule for the slide case ('Slides keep their deck order: figma_move_slides reorders them') and implicitly excludes reparenting by scoping to the current parent. It does not explicitly contrast with figma_reparent_nodes or state ordering-direction prerequisites, but the context is unambiguous.

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