design_reorder_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers little beyond the verb. It does not say whether existing layers shift down/up, whether locked or grouped layers can be reordered, whether out-of-range indices are clamped, or whether the operation is undoable — all material for a mutation tool.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is under-specification rather than genuine completeness.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the schema covers parameters well, but the description leaves the reindexing side effects and return value unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so layerId, newIndex (0 = bottom, n-1 = top), and sketchId are already documented. The description's phrase 'z-order stack' corroborates newIndex semantics but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Move) and resource (a design layer) with the scope of the change (position in the z-order stack). This distinguishes it from design_update_layer and design_set_transform, which handle other layer properties, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus design_update_layer or design_add_layer, and no prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist in the target sketch, must not be locked). The usage is only inferable from the name and verb.

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