reorder_nodes

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

Annotations convey that the tool is mutating but not destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Detached nodes are skipped' and 'Returns { ok, affected }', which are not derivable from annotations or schema. This goes beyond the baseline and provides useful operating detail.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with key behavioral notes and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, edge-case behavior (detached nodes), and the return format. This is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage ('index' as 'Target index within the parent' and 'nodeIds' as 'Node ids to reorder'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: 'Reorder nodes within their current parent by inserting each at `index`'. It specifies the resource (nodes) and the operation (reorder), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reparent_nodes (by emphasizing 'within their current parent') and move_nodes (by referencing z-order).

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 clear context for usage: it is for reordering nodes within the same parent, not for changing parents. It also notes that detached nodes are skipped, which is an important exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use list, so it stops short of a 5.

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