Update Group Order Rank

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by stating that a new Document Markup record is created and returns HTTP 201. This explains the POST behavior despite the tool name 'update'. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=false aligns with creating).

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 five sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It includes necessary API details. Some minor redundancy ('Use this to perform...'), but overall efficient.

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 midpoint ranking and creation via POST, the description covers ranking mechanism, expected input, HTTP response, and endpoint. Lacks error handling or permissions but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Though schema descriptions are complete, the description adds meaning by explaining order_index as a float used for midpoint ranking (e.g., 1500.0 between 1000.0 and 2000.0), which is more specific than the schema's 'order index for this operation'.

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 specifies the verb 'update', the resource 'group position', and the context 'midpoint ranking with float values' in Document Markup. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_group' by detailing the specific repositioning operation.

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 explains that the UI calculates and passes the new rank, and that the tool is used to perform the update group action on Document Markup records. It clearly states required parameters but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or when not to use.

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