nodes_reorder

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not explain that this is a bulk position-assignment operation, whether it replaces all ordering or only moves the listed nodes, or what happens to nodes omitted from the array.

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 two-word description is short but by under-specification rather than economy. It is front-loaded but carries almost no information, so brevity here costs clarity rather than earning it.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, no annotation detail beyond a generic safety hint, and a structured array parameter whose semantics are entirely unexplained, the definition is far too thin for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The critical semantics of `nodes` (array of {uuid, viewPosition}) — e.g. whether viewPosition is an absolute index, a relative rank, or whether the array must be exhaustive — are undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Reorder nodes" states a specific verb and resource, so the basic purpose is legible. However, it offers no scope or differentiation from siblings such as nodes_update, nodes_bulk_update, or nodes_delete, leaving the agent to guess what 'reorder' affects.

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 nodes_update, nodes_list, or any of the other ~30 node tools. No prerequisites, no exclusivity conditions, no mention of what data is needed to perform the reorder.

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