Move layer in the stack

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutating operation. The description adds useful context beyond those flags: moving a folder carries its subtree, and the possible destinations are top/bottom or relative to another layer. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then compresses the three placement modes into a clear list. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 mutating reorder operation, the description covers the core behavior and the three placement modes without requiring the agent to open the schema. It does not mention return values or error cases, but with no output schema and high schema coverage this is a minor gap for a tool whose effects are visible in the layer stack.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the meaning of path, layer, to, above, below, and parent. The description reinforces the role of to/above/below as alternate positioning modes but adds little beyond the structured field 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 a specific action verb ('reorders') with a clear resource ('a layer') and specifies the scope ('with its subtree if it is a folder'). It also enumerates the distinct reordering modes (top/bottom of folder/root, or above/below another layer), which differentiates it from sibling tools like set_layer or remove_layer.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a layer's stacking order needs to change. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as using set_layer for property changes or remove_layer for deletion, leaving exclusion logic to the agent.

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