squads_reorder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether all squads must be supplied, how untouched items are treated, or what happens to positions on conflict. For a mutation of ordered collections this is a real 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?

Four words, front-loaded with the verb and scoped resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 reorder mutation taking a structured array, with no output schema and only generic annotations, needs to explain ordering semantics and full-list versus partial-list behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent guessing at call-correctness details.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate: it never explains that 'items' is a list of {uuid, viewPosition} pairs, whether the list must be exhaustive, or whether viewPosition values must be contiguous. The semantics of ordering are entirely left to inference from the raw schema.

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 specific verb (Reorder) and resource (internal squads), and the word 'internal' is a meaningful discriminator against the sibling external_squads_reorder. It stops short of 5 because it never says what 'reorder' changes (the view position of each squad).

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?

Usage is only implied by the name; there is no statement of when to call this versus squads_update, nodes_reorder, or external_squads_reorder, and no prerequisites. The internal/external distinction is the only routing signal offered.

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