reorder_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'change z-order' without explaining the semantics of FRONT/BACK/FORWARD/BACKWARD, effects on sibling nodes, or whether the operation is reversible. The direction enum exists in the schema but its behaviors are left undefined.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff and clearly front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it is also minimal enough that it sacrifices useful explanatory content, which is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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 tool with moderate complexity (direction semantics, node hierarchy, z-order stacking), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what FORWARD/BACKWARD mean, whether the node must have siblings, or what happens in edge cases, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with 'Target node' and 'Reorder direction', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the enum values are relatively self-explanatory, so no meaningful information is missing beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Change') and a clear resource ('z-order of a node'), making the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling node-manipulation tools, but no sibling has the exact same function, so it is distinguishable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., node must have a parent), how it differs from move_to_parent or align_nodes, or under what conditions a user should pick this tool.

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