Reorder Layer

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

Annotations already indicate this is a modifying (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds behavioral detail about absolute vs relative moves and the optional targetLayer, but does not cover error conditions or reversibility beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second efficiently explains parameter usage patterns. 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 reorder tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It lacks mention of return value (no output schema) and error handling, but these are minor for the operation complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between absolute (top/bottom) and relative (up/down) positions, and clarifies the role of targetLayer for relative placement. This goes slightly beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('moves a layer') and the resource ('layer stack'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose by specifying the concepts of absolute and relative positioning, setting it apart from sibling tools like ps_manage_layers or ps_set_layer_properties.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each positioning type ('top'/'bottom' vs 'up'/'down') and mentions the optional targetLayer for relative placement. However, it does not exclude alternatives or mention prerequisites like layer existence, so it lacks full decision support.

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