mcp_reorder_widgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about whether the supplied list must be exhaustive, what happens to widgets omitted from widget_ids, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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 six-word clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the semantics of a full ordered list and any side effects. Instead it leaves the agent unable to predict the effect on widgets not listed or how errors are surfaced.

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 site, sidebar_id, and widget_ids are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description confirms the sidebar scoping but adds no ordering semantics beyond what 'Ordered list of widget IDs' already states.

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 (Reorder) and resource (widgets) with a scope qualifier (within a sidebar), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling mcp_move_widget, which plausibly does something overlapping, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative mcp_move_widget for repositioning single widgets. The agent gets no help deciding between reorder and move.

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