Reorder Blocks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it's sent with If-Match (concurrency control), which is valuable operational context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe what happens on failure/conflict, but the If-Match mention partially covers this. The openWorldHint=true suggests external systems may be involved, and the description doesn't elaborate, but the If-Match detail is meaningful.

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, zero waste. The language is direct and front-loaded with the core action, then adds constraints. Every clause 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?

The tool is a simple mutation with 3 params and no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose, the critical constraint (complete permutation), and the concurrency mechanism. It's reasonably complete for a straightforward reorder operation, though it could optionally mention how to retrieve current block order (via get_page_blocks) as a prerequisite.

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. The description clarifies that 'order' must be a complete permutation of existing blockIds, which is essential semantic info. However, portalRef and pageRef are not explained beyond being string refs, and the relationship between the 'order' array items and existing block IDs, while implied, isn't fully specified in terms of what IDs to source from.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Set the full block order on a page.' It clearly differentiates from its sibling kilango_move_block (single-block move) by emphasizing 'full block order' vs incremental moves, which is a key distinguishing factor given the sibling list includes both.

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 explicitly states usage constraints: 'order must be a complete permutation of every existing blockId (no adds/drops).' This is critical guidance that prevents misuse. It also implies when to use this vs the 'move_block' sibling (full reorder vs single move), though it doesn't name the alternative explicitly.

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