sort_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden of a mutation. It says nothing about permissions, whether ordered_ids must enumerate all children or a subset, what happens to children omitted from the list, or reversibility; the only disclosure is a vague 'Serializable sort confirmation' return line.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. The Returns line is low-value given an output schema exists, but nothing is verbose or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained. For a two-param mutation with no annotations, however, the definition omits side-effect and ordering-completeness behavior an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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%, so the description must carry the params and it largely does: parent_id is 'Parent identifier, or empty for root' (an edge case absent from the schema) and ordered_ids is 'Child identifiers in their desired order.' It doesn't clarify whether the list must be exhaustive, which leaves one semantic 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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the child ordering under a parent page.' An agent can tell this reorders children rather than moving a page. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g., move_page) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself – call this when you want to reorder children under a known parent. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing note distinguishing it from move_page, which is the most likely confusion among siblings.

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