Reorder components

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

With destructiveHint=true already signaling mutation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: components not in the provided list are appended at the end in their original relative order. This is useful beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the exact outcome.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and target file types. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the key behavior about unspecified components is stated clearly without redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and the important edge-case behavior. It does not specify return values or error handling, but those are not essential given the straightforward scope.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to component_order by clarifying the ordering behavior and the fallback rule for omitted components, which is not in the 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 states a specific verb ('Reorder'), a clear resource ('components in an Altium library file'), and the file types (.PcbLib or .SchLib). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like list_components, read_pcblib, and write_pcblib.

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 implies when to use the tool by scoping it to reordering components in Altium library files, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any constraints or prerequisites. Usage context is present only by implication.

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