external_squads_reorder

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description still owes the agent an explanation of what reordering actually does. It does not say whether the 'items' list must be complete, whether omitted squads keep their position, or how 'viewPosition' is interpreted — all essential for a mutation.

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?

Three words, front-loaded and waste-free, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is no second sentence to add value because no value was added.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, no meaningful annotations beyond the safety hints, and a 0%-documented nested parameter cannot be invoked correctly from this description alone; the agent knows neither the payload contract nor the side effects.

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% for a nested array parameter whose element shape (uuid + viewPosition pair) carries the entire semantics of the operation. The description never mentions the items array, the required fields, or whether the list is a full replacement, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Reorder external squads'), so the basic intent is legible. However, it offers no scope detail and no differentiation from the very similar sibling squads_reorder (internal squads), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as squads_reorder or the other *_reorder siblings. The agent must guess the intended context entirely.

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