node_plugins_reorder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, identifying this as a non-destructive mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain whether the reorder is full or partial, whether all plugin UUIDs must be supplied, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with a complex array payload, this is a notable gap.

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 only four words and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a mutation tool with a structured array parameter. Every sentence earns its place only because there is virtually nothing there.

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 mutation nature, required array-of-objects parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent lacks the information needed to correctly construct the items payload or understand the ordering semantics.

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% and the single required parameter is a complex array of objects containing 'uuid' and 'viewPosition'. The description does not explain the parameter at all — no detail on whether the array must contain all plugins, the meaning of viewPosition, or the uuid format — so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Reorder') and resource ('Node Plugins'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish this reorder operation from the many sibling reorder tools (nodes_reorder, hosts_reorder, squads_reorder, etc.), but the resource name itself provides basic differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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