bring_to_front

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the z-order model ('children[last] is front-most'), but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the node is already front-most, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying detail.

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 simple single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key z-order semantic adequately. The main gap is the absence of any safety or edge-case behavior, which annotations would normally supply.

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?

The single nodeId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about nodeId beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Bring a layer to the front of its parent') and clarifies the z-order semantics with 'children[last] is front-most.' It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling send_to_back by intent, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 self-explanatory operation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus send_to_back or arrange_children, and no prerequisites (e.g., node must have a parent) are stated.

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