Rearrange a card area

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that 'order 不得缺失、重复或越界' (order must not be missing, duplicate, or out of bounds), which specifies the exact validation constraint. It does not elaborate on reversibility or effects, but the destructive flag covers the main concern.

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 one concise sentence that states the action and the key constraint, with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and serves as a minimal yet effective summary.

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 reorder tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core operation and the critical ordering constraint, though it does not mention failure cases or return values. The absence of an output schema reduces the need for return value documentation.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters: area enum, order as a full permutation, and expected_state_token. The description repeats the permutation constraint but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema's existing coverage.

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 states a specific action: '重新排序指定区域' (reorder the specified area), with a clear verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_cards, discard_cards, or use_consumable, as reordering is a unique operation.

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 description implies usage for reordering a card area, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions, though the required expected_state_token is implied by its presence in the schema. The guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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