reorder_suites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies the required parameters and gives examples, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, side effects, or what happens if invalid IDs are provided. The description is clear enough for a straightforward set operation, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 very concise, consisting of a single-line purpose statement, a brief tip, a list of required/optional parameters, and two examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and examples. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., a success indicator), which would be beneficial for an operation that modifies data.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by repeating the required parameters, clarifying that 'parent' can be null for root or a string title, and providing concrete examples that demonstrate how to pass the parameters. This aids interpretation beyond the schema alone.

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: 'Set the sort order of sibling suites under a given parent.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('sort order of sibling suites'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_suite (which changes parent) and list_suites (which reads).

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 provides a helpful tip to call get_project_context or list_suites first to see current suite IDs, guiding when to use this tool. It also includes examples that clarify usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., if the goal is to move suites to a different parent, use move_suite instead).

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