set_visual_z_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: it updates both the container z and config layouts position, and that the setting 'sticks.' It does not cover permissions, error cases, or rollback, but for a simple setter this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short sentences, fully front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose, key behavior, and ordering semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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 setter with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and behavioral nuance. It is slightly incomplete in not referencing when to prefer this over similar sibling tools (e.g., bring_to_front/send_to_back), but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds little beyond what is already in the schema. It reinforces the z-order meaning ('Higher z renders on top') and explains why both locations are updated, but it does not clarify reportSessionId or add details beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Set a visual's z (stack) order explicitly.' It goes beyond a generic setter by explaining the dual-update behavior ('Updates BOTH the container z and the config layouts position'), which differentiates it from other visual manipulation tools.

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 usage context is implied: it is for explicitly setting z-order rather than using relative commands like bring_to_front or send_to_back. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define when not to use it, so guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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