remnawave_nodes_reorder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only labels the operation as a mutation but provides no details on side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or response behavior. This is critically insufficient.

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 extremely brief (one sentence fragment), which may appear concise but is actually underspecified. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential context, making it more detrimental than helpful.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or parameter semantics, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 0%, and the description gives no information about the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The agent has no understanding of what payload expects, confirming tokens, or response modes. This severely hinders correct parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool as a mutation for reordering nodes, which distinguishes it from other node actions. However, it does not specify what 'reorder' entails (e.g., ordering priorities, sorting criteria, or context). It is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other reorder tools (e.g., remnawave_hosts_reorder). The agent has no context for appropriate invocation.

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