reorder_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not say what happens on an invalid or mismatched order, whether the operation errors or silently ignores entries, whether it is undoable, or what it returns. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is well structured. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity; the sentence is too thin for a two-parameter mutation tool, so it earns only partial credit here.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions mean the entire context burden falls on one sentence. Given that the ambiguous new_order array is the core of the operation, the definition is not complete enough to call the tool correctly without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains what node_path format is expected, nor the critical semantics of new_order — whether it is a permutation of existing input indices, whether indices are zero-based, and whether its length must equal the current input count.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder the input connections of a node.' An agent knows exactly what the operation does. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as connect_nodes or connect_nodes_batch, so the reader must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the node must already have multiple inputs), and no mention of alternatives. Usage can only be inferred from the verb 'reorder', which suggests it applies after connections already exist.

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