reorder_niagara_module

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It only says 'Move a module' without disclosing side effects (e.g., index shift, validation, error handling). Not transparent about what happens if new_index is out of bounds.

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?

Concise one-sentence purpose followed by a structured parameter list. No wasted words, front-loaded with action, easy to scan.

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?

All 5 parameters are explained. Output schema exists so return values are covered separately. Missing preconditions or behavioral caveats, but adequate for a straightforward reorder tool.

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 description includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter (system_path, emitter_name, module_name, script_usage, new_index) with brief context, adding value beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it lacks details on constraints (e.g., valid index range).

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 the action ('Move a module') and the target resource ('within its script usage stack'), using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_niagara_module or add_niagara_module by focusing on reordering.

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 implies usage context (reordering modules) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as add/remove. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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