vibo_reorder_sections

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

Annotations only say not-read-only and not-destructive; the description goes much further by disclosing that one reorderSections call is sent per section that actually moves, and by fully describing the confirm-first protocol (elicitation prompt, or preview + confirmToken requiring a repeat call, referencing MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). This is exactly the kind of mutation-safety context the agent needs.

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?

Core action and placement rule are front-loaded in the first sentence, with confirmation mechanics following. The confirmation clause is long and dense, but every clause carries actionable information; no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers the response-side behavior (phase-1 preview, confirmToken, confirmation-required response) and the per-section call granularity. It omits error/partial-failure handling and permission requirements, leaving a small gap for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the omit-targetSectionId behavior and clarifies that sourceSectionIds order is preserved, but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema and its confirmToken warning already provide.

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 ('Move one or more timeline sections') plus the exact placement semantics ('directly after targetSectionId'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling vibo_reorder_songs (which handles songs, not sections). An agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Gives the conditional behavior for omitting targetSectionId (move to start) and lays out the two usage paths for confirmation (elicitation vs preview + confirmToken). It doesn't spell out prerequisites like event ownership or when to prefer vibo_update_section for reordering, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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