reorder_flow_step_prompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the backend 'replaces the step's ordering with this list', indicating a destructive overwrite. It also warns that omitting a snippet results in reorder (deletion). It does not discuss reversibility or other side effects, but overall provides sufficient transparency for the 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?

The description is two sentences: the first sentence defines the purpose, and the second sentence gives critical usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information with no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides key context: the effect (replaces ordering), the need to include all snippets, and a specific prior action (list_flow_step_prompts). It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that 'Pass the snippet ids in the order you want them' and by providing the contextual warning about reading the step first to include every snippet. This helps ensure correct parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Set the full ordering of a flow step's prompt snippets in one call'. It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('flow step's prompt snippets'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'update_flow_step_prompt' or 'attach_prompt_snippet_to_flow_step' by emphasizing the bulk reorder capability.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool and provides a critical prerequisite: 'Read the step first (list_flow_step_prompts) so you include every snippet — omitting one is a reorder, not a safe no-op.' This guides the user to avoid accidental deletions and clarifies the implications of omitting snippets.

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