reorder_status_page_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the full set of components must be supplied and that partial reorders are rejected by the API, plus the zero-based ordinal semantics. However, it does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or any permission requirements.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. The required-positions constraint is placed prominently, making the structure easy to scan.

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 covers the most important behavioral constraint and is reasonably complete given the output schema exists. However, the missing differentiation from the layout sibling and the incorrect field name leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool without error.

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 description helps by explaining the positions array and the full-set requirement, but it calls the field 'position' while the schema requires 'displayOrder'. An agent following the description could send an invalid payload. It also omits the optional groupId field, leaving the parameter guidance incomplete and partially misleading.

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 (reorder) and resource (components on a status page), which is more specific than the sibling reorder_status_page_layout. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from that sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reorder_status_page_layout or update_status_page_component. It explains what is required for the call, but not when it should be selected.

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