external_squads_reorder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Reorder external squads' without explaining whether the provided UUID array replaces the entire order, what happens to omitted squads, or whether any validation occurs. This is a mutation operation, yet the description gives no clues about side effects or constraints.

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?

While the description is extremely concise with no fluff, it is under-specified. A one-phrase description like this is not just concise but lacking in necessary detail, similar to a placeholder. It does not front-load critical information beyond the basic action.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the concept of 'external squads', the semantics of the ordering, or any expected outcomes. Without an output schema or annotations, the minimal description leaves an agent with too many unknowns to confidently invoke 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter: 'Ordered array of squad UUIDs' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so it aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific resource ('external squads'), which distinguishes it from sibling reorder tools like squads_reorder, nodes_reorder, and hosts_reorder. However, it does not clarify what 'external squads' are or what the reordering affects (e.g., display order, priority), so some ambiguity remains.

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 such as squads_reorder or other reorder tools. The description provides no context about scenarios that would call for reordering external squads specifically, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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