reorder_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether position 1 is the top or bottom of the stack, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, what happens with invalid positions, or what the return behavior is.

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 a single scannable sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the key indexing semantic ('one-based') without wasted words.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation, this description is too thin. It leaves out stack orientation, side effects, error handling, and return value, so an agent would have to infer critical invocation details.

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 should explain all three parameters. It only adds meaning to 'position' by describing it as one-based; 'filename' and 'layer_name' are not explained beyond their self-evident names.

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 states a specific action ('move'), a resource ('a layer'), and a destination ('one-based stack position'), so the core operation is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_layer or other layer operations, though the reorder intent is evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use reorder_layer versus any alternative, nor any context about prerequisites or ordering conventions. The description only implies that the caller wants to move a layer, which is insufficient among dozens of layer-related sibling tools.

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