Reorder backlog work items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a write/mutation operation requiring write tool access and explicit confirmation, which is valuable. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing backlog order beyond the move.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, and the core action plus the critical precondition are front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the confirmation guard, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify how to combine previousId, nextId, and parentId, and it leaves some parameters unexplained. It is minimally viable with notable gaps.

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 description adds meaning by tying 'adjacent IDs' to previousId/nextId and mentioning parentId, and it reiterates confirm=true. However, the schema already documents those parameters, and ids, project, and iterationPath remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific verb/resource pair (move or reorder work items in a team backlog) and adds the method (adjacent or parent IDs), which goes beyond the tool title. It is clear and not tautological, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_work_item or add_work_item_relation.

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 gives a clear use context: reordering backlog work items, and it states the essential precondition of requiring write tools and confirm=true. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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