reorder_inputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as 'reorder' which implies mutation, but fails to mention side effects, requirements (e.g., valid input indices, existence of the node), or whether the operation is reversible. The lack of any safety or persistence information is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tight sentence that conveys the core purpose without any redundant wording. It is wholly focused and appropriately sized for a straightforward operation.

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?

As a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description needed to be self-sufficient, but it lacks essential details about the input_indices format and expected behavior. There is no mention of return values, error conditions, or how the node path is resolved. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this description leaves important gaps for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning by describing 'input_indices' as the 'new index order', but does not clarify what the indices refer to, whether they must be a permutation, or the base (0-indexed vs 1-indexed). 'path' is also not explained. The description provides only a slight hint beyond the schema.

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: reordering a node's inputs by specifying a new index order. It uses a specific verb ('Reorder') and resource ('inputs of a node'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_nodes or disconnect_node_input by focusing on reordering existing inputs rather than adding or removing connections.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to reorder node inputs) but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or mentions of alternative tools. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to connect_nodes/batch operations, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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