reorder_options

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

The annotations already state the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only a return-format note ('JSON with the updated order for each option id') and no deeper behavioral context such as validation rules or effects on existing submissions.

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?

The description is compact: one clear purpose sentence, terse parameter descriptions, and a return line. There is no redundant prose or filler, and the most important operation is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter reordering operation, the description provides all essential inputs and the return shape. It does not spell out that new_order should be a permutation of current option ids or what happens with invalid ids, but the annotations and tool simplicity keep that gap small.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description minimally annotates all three parameters: form_id and question_id are numeric ids, and new_order is 'array of option ids in the desired order,' which clarifies order-sensitivity. It stops short of stating constraints like uniqueness or the need for a full permutation of existing option ids.

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 opens with 'Reorder the options within a question,' naming a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'within a question' clearly distinguishes it from sibling reorder_questions, which handles reordering questions instead.

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 summary implies the tool is for changing the order of options in a question, and the parameter names make the target clear. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over reorder_questions or update_option, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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