set_z_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions atomicity (1 API call) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, error behavior for invalid element IDs, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise at one sentence plus a parenthetical. Every word is useful, but it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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?

Despite the tool having 3 required parameters and no nested objects, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the output (though output schema exists), return values, or error cases. For a tool that modifies a presentation, more context is needed about when changes take effect and how to undo.

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 only 33% (just the operation parameter has a description). The tool description does not add meaning for 'presentation_id' or 'element_ids' beyond their schema types. The operation parameter's possible values are listed in the schema but not explained in the description; the description only mentions 'front/back stacking order' without detailing each operation's effect.

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: changing the front/back stacking order of elements. The parenthetical '(1 API call.)' adds atomicity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_transform' or 'group_elements'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't clarify if this tool works on selected elements or requires prior grouping.

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