reorder_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and delivers richly: it discloses error conditions (unknown names, duplicates, missing in strict mode), persistence to `registry.yaml`, and the limitation that running tmux/zellij panes do not live-reorder. This goes well beyond a generic mutation warning.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence adds crucial operational detail: partial reorder safety, strict mode, error conditions, persistence, and session behavior. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 tool is simple in parameters but behaviorally nuanced; the description covers ordering semantics, validation failures, persistence, and live-session caveats. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and nothing needed for correct invocation or expectation-setting is missing.

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 for both parameters. It does: `order` is explained as a sequence of project names that move to the front, and `strict` is described as requiring every project exactly once. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Reorder the registry's `projects` list.' It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings, none of which offer reorder functionality. The scope is immediately clear and not a restatement of the name.

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 clearly explains the default partial-reorder behavior and when to use `strict=True`, which gives an agent actionable decision criteria. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but no sibling is a direct alternative, so the context is sufficient.

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