document.reorder_shapes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that forward/backward move each shape only one step (vs. front/back which jump to an extreme), but is silent on what happens when shape_ids is omitted (all shapes vs. current selection), whether the operation is undoable, and any auth/state requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and z-order clarification, then the value semantics. No filler.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with an undocumented scope of effect, the description is thin: the default behavior when `shape_ids`/`slide_index` are absent, whether the move is undoable, and the result of the operation are all unaddressed. No output schema exists to offload return-value explanation either.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document all three parameters. It gives good semantic detail for the required `to` enum (the one-step behavior of forward/backward), but `shape_ids` and `slide_index` are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reorder shapes on a slide") and disambiguates with "(z-order)", which separates it from move_shape and reorder_slide. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the parenthetical does most of the differentiation work.

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?

Explains the semantics of the `to` values, which implies when each option applies, but never says when to use this tool versus move_shape, align_shapes, or reorder_slide. No prerequisites or when-not conditions are given.

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