reorder_all_completion_paths

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

Annotations are sparse (no readOnly, destructive hints), and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, if it modifies all paths globally, or what happens to other order_index values. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and what is being fixed. No unnecessary words. It is efficiently 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?

Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain the outcome (e.g., resulting order_index values, side effects) and confirm it acts on all completion paths. The current description is too brief for a complete understanding.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. The score is baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Fix gaps and duplicates in order_index' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: it reorders completion paths to correct ordering issues. The name and title reinforce this. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'reorder', and could be more specific about the scope (all paths).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'reorder_completion_path' or 'swap_completion_paths_order'. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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