reorder_page

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, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether other pages shift, whether the index is clamped or errors when out of range, or whether the move is persisted/undoable. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a material gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation, the target, and the indexing convention are all stated compactly.

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?

The tool is genuinely simple (two required scalars, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions it leaves the mutation's side effects on sibling pages unexplained.

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 compensate. It does add the one non-obvious fact — that 'index' is 0-based — while 'pageId' is self-evident from its name. That is partial compensation, not full, since index bounds and negative-index behavior remain undefined.

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 ('Move a page') plus the exact target domain ('page tab bar'), which is enough to separate it from node-level movers like move_node or move_node_to_page. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (move_node_to_page, arrange_children), and no prerequisites such as the page needing to exist or the document needing to be open. The agent gets a definition but no routing logic.

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