reorder_visible_foreign_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so well. It discloses that changes are staged until apply_annotations() is called, describes both input formats (indices or explicit foreign key refs), and states the return value. This is rich behavioral detail for a reordering operation.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds value, there is no redundancy, and the formatting makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (two order formats, staging behavior, context-specific action), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return type, and workflow integration with apply_annotations(). The presence of an output schema means return details need not be verbose, so completeness is high.

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 fully documents all three parameters. It defines table_name, provides examples for context, and explains new_order in detail with two acceptable formats and illustrative examples, completely compensating for the schema gap.

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 tool reorders foreign keys in the visible-foreign-keys list for a specific context. This distinct action is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like set_visible_foreign_keys, add_visible_foreign_key, and reorder_visible_columns.

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?

It positions itself as a convenience tool that avoids manually reconstructing the list, which gives clear context for when to use it. The mention of staging until apply_annotations() is called further clarifies the workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_visible_foreign_keys.

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