vibo_reorder_sections

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: one reorderSections call per section that actually moves (call amplification), a user-confirmation requirement, and the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback for clients lacking elicitation, including the constraint that the token must never be reused or invented. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and placement rule in the first sentence, then layers the confirmation mechanics. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; the parenthetical on MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the confirmation protocol, call granularity, and placement semantics well. It omits permission/authorization requirements and failure behavior (e.g., invalid section ids), leaving a small gap for a write operation.

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 reinforces ordering semantics ('keeping the given order') and the omit-targetSectionId-to-move-to-start behavior, but these are already documented in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 (move/reorder) and resource (timeline sections), including the anchor semantics (directly after targetSectionId, omit for start) and ordering guarantee. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Mirrors vibo_reorder_songs', letting an agent separate section reordering from song reordering or vibo_update_section.

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 clear conditions: use targetSectionId to place after a section, omit it to move to the start, and it describes the mandatory confirmation path with its fallback trigger conditions. It does not state when not to use this versus siblings like vibo_move_song or vibo_update_section, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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