Reorder roles

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains how positions map to hierarchy and discloses the bot's permission boundary (can only move roles below its own highest role). This is useful context that annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 only two sentences, with the action stated first and the key behavioral nuances following immediately. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word adds value with no extraneous detail.

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 tool with two parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: batch reordering, position semantics, and the bot's permission constraint. It does not describe failure modes or return values, but given there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has no descriptions for its parameters, and the description partially compensates by clarifying the meaning of 'position' (higher = higher in list) and the bot's limitation. However, it does not explain the structure of the positions array (each item requires role_id and position) or whether positions are absolute or relative, leaving some ambiguity. The schema already defines the structure, so the added value is moderate.

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 action: 'Change the positions of multiple roles in one request.' This is a specific verb with a clear resource (role positions) and scope (multiple roles, one request). It distinguishes from siblings like reorder_channels by focusing on roles, even though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 useful context for when to use the tool, including the effect ('Higher position = higher in the role list') and the critical limitation ('The bot can only move roles below its own highest role'). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use reorder_channels instead, so it stops short of full guidance.

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