reorder_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that activity_ids is '새 순서의 활동 ID 목록' (new order list), implying a complete replacement of order. However, it does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or whether partial lists are accepted. The parameter description adds some behavioral context but is insufficient 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a bulleted list of parameters. No unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded. The structure supports quick understanding.

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?

With an output schema present (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all required parameters and their meanings. However, it lacks context about whether all activities must be included in activity_ids, and no error or edge-case information is provided. For a simple reorder tool, it is mostly 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 0%, but the description provides clear parameter explanations: trip_id (여행 ID), day_id (일자 ID), and activity_ids (새 순서의 활동 ID 목록 with example). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, clarifying that activity_ids defines the new order.

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 the action ('변경한다' - changes) and the resource ('일자 내 활동 순서' - order of activities within a day). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_activity and update_activity by focusing on reordering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from update_activity, which might also modify order implicitly.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that activities must exist for the day), nor any indication of when not to use it. Sibling tools like update_activity could also affect ordering, but no comparison is made.

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