Update Layer Order Rank

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

The description reveals that the tool creates a new Document Markup record (HTTP 201) rather than modifying an existing row, which is a key behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It also specifies the POST endpoint. Annotations are consistent (not read-only, not destructive). No contradiction.

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 compact with 5 sentences, front-loaded with the action. It includes purpose, example, usage hint, required params, and API details without redundant information. Minor grammatical issue ('a new Document Markup records') but does not impede understanding.

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 input schema is fully described and annotations are present, the description covers the core purpose and mechanics. However, it lacks information about the response structure (beyond HTTP 201) and potential error conditions. Without an output schema, some details about returned fields would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context: it notes required parameters and explains that order_index is a float calculated as a midpoint between other ranks (e.g., 1500.0 between 1000.0 and 2000.0). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 it updates a layer's position using midpoint ranking with float values, specifically for Document Markup records. It provides a concrete example of the rank calculation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_layer' or 'update_group_order_rank', though the focus on order rank and float values implies uniqueness.

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 the rank and passes it directly, implying the user should provide a computed float. It mentions 'Use this to perform the update layer action on Document Markup records', giving context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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