reorder_status_page_layout

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

The description explains the key behavioral constraint that partial reorders are rejected, requiring the full top-level set. It also clarifies that `groupOrders` is optional and only needed for groups with changed internal order. However, it does not discuss side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden; it covers the main quirk but lacks some transparency.

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 well-structured, beginning with the core purpose, then detailing required and optional parameters, and ending with usage guidelines. It is concise, informative, and contains no redundant sentences.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, constraints, and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks examples and does not discuss potential errors, but the output schema mitigates the need for return value explanations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for top-level parameters, but the description compensates fully. It explains the structure of `sections` and `groupOrders`, including the allowed kinds and the requirement to provide the full top-level set. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'batch-reorder' and the resource 'a status page's full layout'. It distinguishes from sibling 'reorder_status_page_components' by specifying that this tool handles both groups and ungrouped components, whereas the sibling is for within a single group.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use this for drag-and-drop layout edits that touch both groups and ungrouped components.' Also states when not to use: 'To reorder components within a single group only, prefer reorder_status_page_components.' Additionally, alerts that the API rejects partial reorders, so the full top-level set must be provided.

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