Reorder brand variations

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

With no annotations, the description covers all key behavioral traits: it OVERWRITES the stored order, takes effect on next view, rejects partial lists with a 400, requires kits:write scope, and returns the new order. This exceeds expectations 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 detailed but every sentence contributes new information: purpose, client-view impact, overwrite warning, constraint/error, id source, and auth. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically. A minor typo ('directions' instead of 'variations') and slight verbosity keep it from a 5.

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?

Even without output schema or annotations, the description thoroughly explains behavior, errors, auth, and id sourcing. It covers the critical requirement to list all variations exactly once. It doesn't specify a formal response structure, but it mentions the return order, making it sufficiently complete for this operation.

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 schema already explains both parameters with good descriptions. The description adds value by telling users where to obtain variationIds (from add_brand_variation or a previous call) and reinforces the 'exactly once' requirement, providing context 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 action ('Set the order the client meets the directions in') and identifies the resource (brand variations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add/update/remove by focusing solely on reordering, even explaining the share page impact.

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?

It provides strong usage context: the order is a deliberate decision, and every variation must be listed exactly once, with partial lists rejected. It also references add_brand_variation as a source for ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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