z_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious side effects: above/below may silently move the element into the target's layer/group while preserving visual position, and multiple ids retain their relative order. It also states it returns each id's position. However, it says nothing about the `preview` flag's effect on mutability, error behavior, or reversibility.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, then a compact per-operation glossary, then the return note. The telegraphic style ('forward/backward: one step past the next object it overlaps') is effective rather than wasteful. Slightly clipped for a reader unfamiliar with the drawing model, but no sentence is filler.

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 six-operation mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation semantics thoroughly and handles the return value ('each id's position'). The obvious gap is the undocumented `preview` parameter, which matters for a mutation tool, and the unmentioned `doc_id` scoping.

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 partially does: it defines three of the six enum values in detail, clarifies that `ids` is an ordered set preserving relative order, and explains `target`'s role for above/below. It never mentions `doc_id` or `preview`, leaving two of five parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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+resource ('Change stacking order') and immediately clarifies it as 'what is drawn on top', which disambiguates from siblings like align or move_to_layer that also reposition elements. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Goes well beyond generic guidance by explaining WHEN each operation variant applies: front/back operate within the element's own layer/group, forward/backward move one step past the overlapping object, and above/below are relative to `target`. This is genuinely decision-relevant. It stops short of 5 because there is no 'when not to use this tool' or explicit alternative (e.g. move_to_layer).

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