Reorder internal squads by assigning each squad UUID a new 0-based position to update their display order.
Reorder internal squads by providing each squad UUID with its new position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Array of squads with their new positions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'reorder' without detailing side effects, authentication requirements, how unlisted squads are affected, or the idempotence of the operation. The behavioral burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to explain the consequences beyond the basic action.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence containing no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the operation and input format.
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?
The tool is a simple one-parameter mutation, and the schema covers the input shape. However, it does not clarify whether the items array must contain the complete ordering or only changed positions, nor what the response looks like. With no annotations or output schema, these gaps make the description minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing 'Squad UUID' and 'New position (0-based)' fields, but it does not need to since the schema already fully documents the parameter structure.
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 uses a specific verb ('Reorder') and resource ('internal squads'), and the phrase 'internal squads' distinguishes this from the external_squads_reorder sibling. It clearly states the operation and scope.
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?
The description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The word 'internal' implies a contrast with external_squads_reorder, but no explicit routing or exclusion is provided, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.