update_navigation_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies frontmatter, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing navigation settings. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or detailed behavioral context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions modifying frontmatter, which loosely relates to 'path' and 'order' parameters, but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., 'path' as file path, 'order' as numerical position). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'navigation order of a document', specifying it modifies frontmatter. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_document' or 'move_document' by focusing on navigation order, but could be more specific about what 'navigation order' entails (e.g., ordering in a menu or hierarchy).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_document' (which might also modify frontmatter) or 'generate_documentation_navigation' (which might affect navigation). The description implies usage for updating navigation order in frontmatter, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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