onenote_reorder_sections

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the scope of reordering within a notebook or section group, which is useful context, but it does not disclose behavior if both before_section_id and after_section_id are provided, or what happens if the section is not found. This is a moderate level of transparency beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero filler. Every word serves a clear function: stating the action, the scope, and the required reference parameter.

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 core operation, the parent context, and the reference parameter choice. It does not explain the response format (no output schema) or edge cases like both references provided, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is reasonably complete. A small gap is the lack of explicit validation behavior.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds semantic value by stating 'Provide either before_section_id or after_section_id as the reference,' which clarifies the mutual exclusivity that is not explicitly in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the action ('Change section tab order') and the resource ('within a notebook or section group'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like onenote_reorder_pages (pages vs sections) and onenote_move_section (which moves sections, not reorders within the same parent).

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 provides direct usage guidance by explaining that either before_section_id or after_section_id must be supplied as the reference. It implies the tool is for reordering within a single parent, which differentiates from moving sections across parents, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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