reorder_node

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

The description is minimal; it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the literal action. It does not specify whether the change is immediate, if it affects node selection, or if it requires special permissions. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The key action and object are front-loaded. It earns its place.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the four direction values or the exact effect on node ordering. For full autonomous invocation, an agent needs more context about how direction works and what the return value is. This description leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. It reiterates the tool's general action but does not elaborate on what the direction values do or how nodeId is identified.

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 uses a specific verb ('change') and a clear resource ('z-order') targeting 'a node', which is precise. Among 200+ sibling tools, no other directly alters z-order, so it is well-differentiated.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like flatten_node or move_to_parent. It does not explain the four direction values (FRONT, BACK, FORWARD, BACKWARD) or the effect on layering. An agent needs to infer usage patterns, increasing decision risk.

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