reorder_atc_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the top-down evaluation and that omitted rules go to the end (via schema description). This is sufficient for a reorder operation, though it could mention if the operation is reversible or requires permissions. Overall, it provides adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and behavior. Every sentence earns its place with 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 single parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and existence of sibling tools, the description is complete. It tells the AI everything needed to use the tool correctly: what it does, how to provide input, and the ordering semantics.

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?

The sole parameter 'orderedIds' has a schema that already describes it well, but the description adds valuable context: 'Get IDs from list_atc_rules' and clarifies the ordering rule. This goes beyond the schema by providing usage guidance, making parameter semantics excellent.

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's purpose: 'Change ATC rule priority order.' It specifies that rules are evaluated top-to-bottom, first match wins, which differentiates it from sibling tools like add_atc_rule, delete_atc_rule, update_atc_rule, and list_atc_rules. The verb 'reorder' combined with the resource 'ATC rules' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (to change priority order) and provides context on evaluation order. It also tells the user to get rule IDs from list_atc_rules. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives for modifying individual rules, which slightly reduces completeness.

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