reorder_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool changes layer order within the same parent, which is a non-destructive operation. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions, but for this simple tool, the behavior is adequately transparent.

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, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and key distinction. No unnecessary information.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, distinction from a key sibling, and interaction between parameters. The agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'index' parameter overrides 'position' if both are provided, which is not stated in the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter precedence.

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 explicitly states the tool changes the z-order of a node within its parent, using a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('z-order of a node'). It clearly distinguishes itself from 'insert_child' by noting that reorder_node does not re-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 explicitly contrasts with 'insert_child' to guide when to use this tool vs that sibling. However, it does not mention other related siblings like 'move_node' (which changes position in 2D space) or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity.

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