reorder_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, error cases, permissions, or return values. The description only clarifies the difference from insert_child, leaving many behavioral aspects implicit.

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 consists of two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately addresses sibling differentiation, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with three fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the key differentiator from insert_child, though it could mention other related tools like move_node. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the override behavior of index is already in the schema). Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'change' and the resource 'z-order (layer order) of a node', and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'insert_child' which does re-parenting. This makes the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 directly compares with 'insert_child', clarifying that reorder_node is for same-parent reordering while insert_child changes parent. This provides clear context on when to use each tool, though no explicit 'when not to use' or other alternatives are listed.

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