reorder_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions that the direction is UP or DOWN, but does not explain how the move affects the constraint order, what the optional bone parameter does, or how errors are handled. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and then specifies the direction parameter, making it easy to parse or skim.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the meaning of moving a constraint up/down, the role of the bone parameter, or the expected inputs for object and constraint. The agent would need more context to use the tool reliably.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description only clarifies the 'direction' parameter (UP or DOWN) and leaves 'object', 'constraint', and 'bone' unexplained. This fails to provide necessary semantic meaning for three of four parameters.

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 clearly states the tool moves a constraint up or down, which is a specific verb (move) with a resource (constraint) and direction. This distinguishes it from other constraint tools like add_constraint or set_constraint_property, which affect constraints differently.

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?

The description implies the tool is for reordering constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. It lacks context about whether this is for the constraint stack order or other ordering, but the intent is apparent.

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