reorder_feature

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a risky mutation, but the description adds nothing about what is actually at risk — e.g., that reordering can break downstream features or invalidate references, or that a rebuild may be required. The "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" line is generic and does not describe concrete failure behavior.

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 sentences, but only the first is on-topic. The units sentence (mm, degrees, kg) is irrelevant to a name-based reordering operation, and the "verified measurements and error evidence" sentence is unfalsifiable filler with no output schema to anchor it.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, which demands more disclosure, not less. An agent cannot determine from the description what the parameters mean or what side effects to expect after the call.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it never explains that "name" identifies the feature to move or that "before" is the anchor feature it should precede. The bare word "reorder" only weakly implies ordering 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Reorder feature") that is clearly distinct from siblings such as delete_feature, suppress_feature, and list_features. The trailing clause about the "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is vendor boilerplate and adds no disambiguation, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Nothing says when to reorder versus when to delete/suppress and re-add, nor are prerequisites stated (e.g., that both features must already exist and that the operation changes rebuild order). No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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