reorder_planner_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that reordering is meaningful only when events share date+section, but does not describe what happens otherwise (e.g., behavior, side effects, whether it's a permanent mutation, or any permission requirements). For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the basic input requirement and a key constraint, but lacks details on the effect of the reorder (e.g., what happens to events not in the list, whether the order is absolute or relative, or what the response indicates). Given the simplicity of the schema and lack of output schema, it is somewhat complete but leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 adds that event_ids should be passed in desired order and belong to the same date+section, providing context beyond the bare integer array. However, it does not elaborate on the interpretation of the order (e.g., whether the first element becomes the first in the section) or whether the list must include all events in the section, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Reorder' and the resource 'events within a section', and specifies that event_ids should be passed in desired order. It is unambiguous about the action and scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like move_planner_event, so it lacks explicit sibling 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 description gives a constraint that all events should belong to the same date+section for meaningful reordering, implying the tool is for reordering multiple events within a section. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like move_planner_event or provide exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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