reorder_modifier

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

The description discloses that the tool reorders a modifier in the stack, which is the primary behavioral effect. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., that it permanently changes the object's modifier order), error conditions, or requirements (e.g., that the modifier must exist). With no annotations to fall back on, this is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single short sentence that states the purpose with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with three required parameters and no schema descriptions. It does not define the parameters, valid direction values, or the result. While an output schema exists, the input semantics are under-specified.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-specific details. It does not explain what values 'direction' accepts (e.g., 'up' vs 'down'), what 'object_name' refers to, or how 'modifier_name' is identified. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the action 'reorder' and the resource 'modifier', and specifies the direction as 'up or down'. This distinguishes it from other modifier tools like add_modifier or remove_modifier, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other modifier operations. Context is implied from the purpose, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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