Set drawing order

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the hard host constraint (windows/doors cannot go below their host), the type-based default ordering that Reset presumably restores, and the response payload including an optional warning field. It doesn't discuss permission/auth or whether changes are undoable.

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?

Highly front-loaded: the effect and the action/level decision come first, then defaults, then constraints, then return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; the type-default enumeration is long but directly load-bearing for choosing 'level'.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return object and warning field. Combined with the level semantics, host constraint, and group behavior (documented in the schema), an agent has enough to call this correctly; only auth/undo behavior is unaddressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantive meaning the schema lacks: the level range interpretation (1 bottom .. 14 top), that Reset means 'default order of the type', that steps repeats BringForward/SendBackward, and a full table of per-type default levels. This materially helps an agent pick a value.

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+resource pair ('Changes the 2D stacking (display) order of elements on the plan') and anchors it to the concrete UI location (Edit > Display Order). The parenthetical example (a fill behind lines) makes the effect unambiguous and it is clearly distinct from sibling modify/move 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?

Explicitly frames the two mutually exclusive modes ('Give action ... OR a target level'), and the schema repeats 'give this OR level/action'. It also names a real precondition (windows/doors cannot go below their host) and default draw indices per element type. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool.

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