Reorder Layer

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

With no annotations providing behavioral hints, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the positional options but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid target) or side effects on other layers. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action. The second sentence provides useful guidance on using 'get_layers' and explains the position options. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main operation and the parameter semantics. However, it could mention if group layers are affected or any prerequisites, but overall it enables correct invocation.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing the position options and their meanings, which helps clarify usage beyond the raw schema enum.

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 tool moves a layer to a new position in the stack. It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'move_layer', which could cause confusion.

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 provides a helpful suggestion to use 'get_layers' to see the current order, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other layer reordering tools or alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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