rank_backlog

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it performs a partial reorder, with only the provided refs receiving the new order while others remain unchanged. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling for invalid refs, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Reorder project backlog') and immediately clarifies the behavior. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the essential behavior: the reorder scope and the effect on non-mentioned items. It is almost complete, but the ambiguity of 'refs' and the lack of detail on what happens to ranks (e.g., whether they are renumbered contiguously) slightly detract from full completeness. Nonetheless, it provides sufficient context for a tool of this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'ordered_refs' refers to 'passed refs' and that 'project' refers to the project whose backlog is being reordered. However, it does not explain what a 'ref' is (e.g., task ID, numeric rank) or the expected format, which is critical for correct invocation. The description adds some value but not enough for full parameter understanding.

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 project backlog' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the ordering semantics ('passed refs get the given order, others keep their rank'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on tasks, projects, or actors. There is no other reordering tool in the sibling list, so its purpose is 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 implies that the tool is used when you need to reorder a project backlog, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools or provide prerequisites (e.g., having a valid project ID). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.

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