nexus_reorder_pinned_comments

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

It discloses the v2 GraphQL mechanism and the return contract: JSON {comments:[{id}]} in the new order or an error string. Annotations already indicate mutation and idempotence, so the description adds useful contract details without contradicting them.

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?

Three short focused statements: purpose, required input, return value. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With one simple parameter, a complete schema description, output schema present, and annotation coverage for idempotence/destructiveness, the description provides all necessary context. The only minor omission is explicit exclusion of non-pinned comments, but 'pinned comment IDs' covers that.

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 single parameter comment_ids is fully described in the schema as 'Comma-separated pinned comment IDs in the desired order.' The description adds the crucial requirement to pass ALL pinned IDs, emphasizing the non-incremental, full-set semantics.

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 ('pinned comments in a thread'), clearly identifying the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like nexus_pin_comment or nexus_reorder_item because it targets the ordering of already-pinned comments, not pinning or collection item reordering.

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 instruction 'Pass ALL pinned comment IDs of the thread in the desired order' gives a clear, mandatory usage pattern and implies this is a whole-set replacement rather than a partial reorder. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is unambiguous.

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