pbi_reorder_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it accepts IDs or visible names and that unspecified pages retain their relative order at the end. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, destructive, or has any prerequisites like an open project or permissions, which are common for mutation tools.

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, consisting of two short sentences that deliver key information without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple reorder tool, the description covers the essential behavior: how pages are referenced and what happens to unmentioned pages. The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, given the lack of annotations, some side-effect information would make it more complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'order' parameter by stating it accepts IDs or visible names, which is helpful. However, it says nothing about 'request_id', leaving that parameter undocumented and adding no context for it.

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 the tool's function: 'Fija el orden de las paginas del informe' (sets the order of report pages). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_page, duplicate_page, and delete_page.

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 context is clear: it's for reordering pages. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. Sibling tools exist for other page operations, so the purpose implicitly separates it, but no direct exclusions are stated.

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