reorder_enum_entry

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent, destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: to_index clamping behavior, exclusion of the trailing _MAX sentinel, and an explicit error contract for unknown entries, none of which appear in the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its example, then adds the clamping caveat and return shape – every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for a stray double space and for the return shape being prose-embedded rather than a structured output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return object fields, and it covers the mutation semantics and error path. For a simple 3-parameter reorder tool, this is close to complete; only an explicit alternative-tool pointer is missing.

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, but the description meaningfully extends to_index semantics beyond the schema's 'Target zero-based position' by specifying it is clamped to the user-entry range with the sentinel excluded. This is a genuine behavioral constraint on how the parameter is interpreted.

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 (move one enumerator) and resource (Blueprint Enum position) and disambiguates from siblings like rename_enum_entry/add_enum_entry by describing a positional shift. The concrete example [A,B,C,D] move B->index 2 = [A,C,B,D] removes any ambiguity about what 'reorder' means.

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 mechanics of use are well described (clamping to the user-entry range, error on unknown entry), which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it never names the alternative operations (e.g. add_enum_entry, rename_enum_entry) or states an explicit when-not condition, leaving routing to inference.

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