reorder_status_page_components

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

The description discloses the rejection of partial reorders, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. But with no annotations, it could further explain whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or returns a result.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and using clear, direct language. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the nesting and that annotations are absent, the description captures the key constraint but lacks explanation of return values, authentication, or differentiation from reorder_status_page_layout. The output schema exists but its specifics are not described, relying on the agent to infer.

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 explains the positions parameter as a list of {componentId, position} entries with zero-based ordinals and enforces a full set. However, it omits the page_id parameter and ignores the optional groupId field present in the schema, which may lead to incomplete understanding.

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 the resource 'components on a status page'. It further specifies that it sets new positions for all components, which distinguishes it from siblings like reorder_status_page_layout.

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?

It explicitly states that a full set of positions must be provided and partial reorders are rejected, giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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