swap

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation, yet it says nothing about what happens on failure, whether cross-page/cross-folder swaps are allowed, or that undo/redo can reverse it. Only 'trade the places' hints at atomicity.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from compression — there is no structure beyond the single clause.

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 return values needn't be explained, but for a two-required-parameter mutation with zero annotation and zero parameter-schema coverage the description leaves out identifier format, validity constraints, and side effects. Given the complexity of the surrounding toolset, this is under-specified.

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% and the parameters are named only 'a' and 'b' with titles 'A' and 'B'. The description's phrase 'two items' adds minimal meaning — it does not say whether each value is an ID, label, or index, which is the key ambiguity for this call.

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?

Specific verb (trade places) and a stated scope (two items), which distinguishes it from rearrange-style siblings like move or place_at. However, "items" stays vague — in a layout-editor toolset it is unclear whether these are apps, folders, or pages.

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 indication of when to prefer swap over move, place_at, arrange, or page_op, and no preconditions (same page, same folder, same type). The agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the sibling list.

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