reorder_artboards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that artboardIds must be a complete permutation limited to the target page, warns against omitting or including foreign IDs, and explains that the open canvas tab must be refreshed to see the new order. It does not mention persistence, reversibility, or error behavior, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and default behavior, the exact input constraint with a read-before guidance, and how to verify the result. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important call prerequisites are front-loaded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required call flow: which read operation to precede with, the exact contract for artboardIds, and how to confirm the result. The only notable gap is no statement about return values or failure behavior on an invalid permutation, but the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantics for artboardIds, which has no schema-level description: it must be an ordered full permutation of existing artboards on that page, and the current order should be read first. pageId remains implicit, but the overall parameter intent is substantially clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it adjusts the display order of artboards on a page's canvas. It also explains the default behavior (new artboards append to the end) and clearly frames this tool as the one for reordering, distinguishing it from the read-only siblings it references.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when artboards need reordering, and first call a read operation like loadProjectTree/get_project to see the current order. It does not name an alternative reorder tool or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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