reorder_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the rebuild/remeasure side effect, that the sketch and dependent reference planes/axes travel with the feature, and the refusal condition when the feature is built on another feature at or after the target position. It also names the two return values. It does not say what happens to downstream features that already existed after the insertion point.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded, but the boss/holes scenario is written as a tangled run-on whose referents ("those cuts", "that place") take effort to resolve. The information is valuable, the phrasing costs readability.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, refusal behavior, and return values — close to enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is downstream-feature behavior and error signaling on bad inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `name` (a list_features name) and implies `before` is another feature name, but never states explicitly that `before` must be an existing feature name from the same list, nor what an invalid name does.

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 and resource: "Move a feature ... to just before another one", and disambiguates the `name` argument by tying it to list_features. It is clearly distinguishable from delete_feature, suppress_feature, and rebuild, though the parenthetical definition of a feature is slightly buried mid-sentence.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario (a boss added last that must cut through earlier holes), which tells the agent exactly the situation that calls for a reorder rather than a delete-and-recreate. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating 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.