move_modifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that this is a mutating operation changing modifier order and that direction accepts UP or DOWN. However, it does not disclose behavior at stack boundaries, error cases, or whether anything is returned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the direction constraints are stated directly, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with three required string parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to define what object and modifier refer to and omits boundary behavior, leaving gaps that could cause incorrect 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It only explains the direction values ('UP or DOWN'); the object and modifier parameters remain undocumented strings, leaving an agent unable to infer whether they expect names, IDs, or paths.

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 a clear action ('move') and resource ('modifier') with the specific scope 'up or down in the stack,' which distinguishes it from modifier creation, deletion, and property tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like reorder_constraint, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended use case is implied: reorder a modifier within its stack. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_modifier_property or reorder_constraint, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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