reorder-objects

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) establish operation safety profile, and the description complements them by explaining the operational semantics: reordering behavior, the optional parentId move operation, and the special 'root' value. The description adds context about operation ordering (schema says moves happen first, then reorders) that goes beyond the annotations. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then conditional instructions for each entity type. Zero wasted words, excellent structure with clear project/section separation.

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 multi-entity, multi-operation tool, the description covers all key scenarios: reorder projects, move projects (with root handling), and reorder sections. With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation. The sibling table is irrelevant here. Complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke.

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 on top by explaining concrete usage scenarios for each parameter combination and the 'root' sentinel. Slightly more detail on how 'items' interacts across multiple reorders could push this to 5.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Reorder sibling projects or sections, and optionally move projects to a new parent') that clearly articulates the tool's dual purpose. It goes beyond the name by explaining the move capability, the 'root' keyword for top-level moves, and explicitly differentiates project behavior from section behavior.

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 provides explicit conditional guidance ('For projects: ... For sections: ...') that tells the agent exactly which parameters to set in each scenario. However, it doesn't reference alternative sibling tools like 'project-move' that might serve a similar purpose, so an explicit when-not-to-use statement would elevate this.

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