set_sticker_position_in_set

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds little beyond stating the move action; it does not disclose side effects like shifting other stickers or validation behavior. However, it does not contradict annotations, so it meets the baseline.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It effectively communicates the core action in minimal 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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety profile, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about return values, errors, or prerequisites like the sticker needing to be in the set. It does not fully leverage the opportunity to clarify usage among many sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'sticker' and 'position' without explaining their formats or semantics. For example, 'sticker' could be a file ID or a sticker object, and 'position' is implied to be 0-based via the schema minimum. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the imperative 'Move' to specify a clear action on a sticker, with scope 'to a specific position in the set.' This distinguishes it from siblings like add/delete/replace, which have different operations. It clearly conveys the reordering purpose.

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 explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicitly for reordering existing stickers, the description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., sticker existence), or alternatives such as set_sticker_mask_position. This is a clear gap.

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