Reorder filters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but does not mention whether the index is zero-based, what happens if the index is out of bounds, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, concise sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and key concept, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is an excellent example of efficient, focused tool documentation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which would explain return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the essential purpose and parameters but omits contextual details like index semantics, error behavior, or prerequisite filter existence on the source. For a simple reorder operation, this is a clear but not exhaustive coverage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles. The phrase 'processing order (index)' gives semantic meaning to the index parameter, and 'of a filter on a source' maps to filter_name and source_name. However, it does not clarify index base or valid ranges, which leaves partial ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('Set the processing order (index)') on a specific resource ('of a filter on a source'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_source_index (which reorders sources) and set_filter_settings (which sets filter properties), making the tool's unique function clear.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_filter, remove_filter, or set_source_index. There is no explicit mention of when this reorder operation is appropriate or when other tools should be chosen, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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