Reorder source in scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It explicitly defines index semantics (0 = back, higher = drawn on top), which is critical behavioral information beyond the bare schema. It does not detail edge cases like out-of-range indices or effects on existing order, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two focused sentences plus a helpful example. The first sentence immediately states the action, the second clarifies the ordering semantics, and the example grounds it in a realistic use case. No fluff or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, key mechanics, and parameter meaning with an example. It does not address potential errors or what happens with an invalid index, but those gaps are minor for such a straightforward reorder 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming all three parameters in context: source_name, scene_name, and index, and the example maps a real source and scene to its natural language intent. While not a formal parameter-by-parameter breakdown, it effectively conveys each parameter's meaning.

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 changes the stacking order (z-order) of a source in a scene, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_source_transform or reorder_filters by explicitly targeting z-order rather than transforms or filters.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a user wants to change the stacking order of sources in a scene. It includes a concrete example ('Send my webcam to the front'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, slightly missing the top bar.

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