ass_reorder_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral context: order must be a permutation, and missing/unknown/duplicated names are surfaced in the error. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens to lines referencing the reordered styles.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections. Nothing is wasted, though the Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists. Overall tight and well-organized.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with a published output schema, the description covers both arguments, the key constraint, and error behavior. The main gap is lack of mutation-safety context (undo/permissions), but the core calling information is complete.

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, and it does: it clarifies that 'order' is the complete list and that a comma-separated string is also accepted, matching the schema's anyOf array/string. 'doc_id' meaning (None = current document) is also explained. This is strong param documentation beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb (reorder) and resource (the style section), which is clearly distinct from line-level siblings such as sort_lines, move_lines, or split_line. The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast its effect on style definitions versus line content.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is provided. The permutation constraint hints at context but does not tell the agent when reordering styles is appropriate versus using sort_lines or setting a different style. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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