figma_reorder_node

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates node order and explains the index values. However, it omits side effects (e.g., children behavior), error handling (out-of-bounds index), permissions, and success confirmation. It adds some value but not enough for full transparency.

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 two sentences and immediately states the action and the key parameter. Every sentence is essential; there is no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core operation but leaves gaps: return value not mentioned (e.g., success confirmation, error structure), persistence implications not addressed, and the meaning of 'among its siblings' could be clearer. Adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the `to` parameter well ('0-based child index, or "front"/"back"'), adding meaning beyond the schema type constraints. However, `nodeId` is left entirely uncommented, assuming domain knowledge. Partially compensates for coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change an existing node's z-order among its siblings without a full re-build.' The verb 'change' and resource 'z-order' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like figma_delete_node (deletion) and figma_screenshot (capture), leaving no ambiguity.

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 phrase 'without a full re-build' hints at an efficiency advantage, implying an alternative that does require a rebuild. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor are exclusion criteria or prerequisites provided. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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