nodes_reorder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Reorder nodes') but doesn't specify if this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid UUIDs), or what the expected outcome is (e.g., order persistence). This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the action and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a reordering operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reorder' entails (e.g., affects display, routing, or hierarchy), potential side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool with one parameter, this lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.

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%, with the parameter 'uuids' clearly documented as an 'Ordered array of node UUIDs'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., minimum array length). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Reorder nodes') and the mechanism ('by providing an ordered array of UUIDs'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'nodes_list' or 'nodes_update'—it's unclear if this reorders all nodes globally or within a specific context, making it somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used after creating nodes with 'nodes_create' or instead of updating order via 'nodes_update', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing existing nodes. This leaves the agent with no context for selection.

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