Reorder plan blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and idempotence are known. The description adds the behavioral constraint that all visible block UUIDs must be passed, and the drag-and-drop analogy conveys an intuitive mental model. However, it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens if the set is incomplete) or whether the operation replaces the entire order atomically.

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. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second delivers the critical usage instruction. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple reorder tool with two well-described parameters and annotations that cover mutation/idempotence, the description is sufficient. It conveys the core constraint (all visible UUIDs) and the target resource. It could optionally mention that the current visible list can be fetched with list_daily_plan_blocks, but this is implied and not essential. The output schema is absent, but a reorder tool naturally needs no return value description.

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%: both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description essentially repeats the ordered_ids semantic ('ALL block UUIDs visible on that date, in the desired order') and adds the 'drag-and-drop' analogy, but it does not add new details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full 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 a specific action ('Reorder the day-planner blocks visible on a given local date') and provides a relatable analogy ('drag-and-drop equivalent'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as update_daily_plan_block or set_daily_plan_block_status by focusing solely on reordering, and no other daily-plan reorder tool exists among siblings.

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 explicitly instructs the key usage requirement: 'Pass ALL block UUIDs visible on that date, in the desired order.' This is a critical guideline that prevents partial-update mistakes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but given the sibling list, this is the only reorder tool for daily plan blocks, so the context is clear.

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