Menus: reorder items

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the destructive annotation: named items take the first places in the given order, other siblings follow in their current order, and locked items keep their place. It also discloses the user-confirmation requirement and clarifies what happens to unspecified siblings, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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 proceeds through constraints, alternative, and safety warning with no filler. The second sentence is long but informative, though its content about item ordering duplicates the schema description for `item_ids`, making it slightly redundant.

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 no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete: it covers purpose, sibling alternative, destructive behavior, prerequisite user check, and ordering semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description largely repeats the item-ordering semantics that the `item_ids` schema description covers (comma-separated order, shared parent, locked items) without adding new meaning beyond what is already in the structured field. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the order of menu items that share a parent.' It also distinguishes from `menus_update_item` as the alternative for moving items under a different parent. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling `menus_reorder`, leaving a potential naming ambiguity unaddressed.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative (`menus_update_item`) and the condition that selects it: moving under a different parent. It also gives a prerequisite ('check with the user before running it') and defines the constraint that items must share one parent, effectively stating when not to use this tool.

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