reorder-objects

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the order of operations (parentId moves first, then reordering) and that all items should be siblings for predictable results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise with two clear paragraphs. First paragraph gives general purpose, second provides specific instructions for each type. No wasted 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 complexity of two entity types and optional movement, the description covers key aspects: what entities, what actions, order of operations. Edge cases like invalid parentId are not mentioned, but output schema exists, reducing need for return value details.

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% with good descriptions, but the tool description adds value by contextualizing parameter usage: for projects use order and/or parentId, for sections only order, and that parentId can be 'root' for top-level. This enhances understanding.

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 it reorders sibling projects or sections and optionally moves projects. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'project-move', which might be a more specific alternative for moving projects without reordering.

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 explains when to use for projects vs sections, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'project-move' for move-only operations.

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