Reorder Filters

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes meaningfully beyond them by disclosing a refusal path: in a list containing a mail-sending rule the move is rejected under "Always block". It also explains the confirmation mode returning status pending_user_confirmation, which an agent needs in order to handle the call correctly.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the edge-case behavior second; nothing is padded. The second sentence is slightly compressed ("In a list that holds a rule sending mail this is refused") but remains readable.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the refusal condition and the pending-confirmation return status. It omits what happens to the indices of adjacent filters, which is a minor residual gap.

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% (accountId, fromIndex, toIndex are all documented, including "0 = highest priority"), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase "execution order" reinforces the meaning of the indices but adds no syntax, bounds, or shift behavior beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Move a filter") plus the dimension being changed ("position in the execution order"), which implicitly separates it from updateFilter and createFilter/deleteFilter. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating what it does not do, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in the text itself.

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 mention of "execution order" implies the context in which the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus updateFilter guidance and no stated prerequisites (permissions, whether filters must exist at both indices). Usage must largely be inferred from the verb.

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