Set Z-Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not covered by annotations: the change runs in default background mode without activating Illustrator or invoking Computer Use, which tells the agent this is a safe headless mutation.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is environment-specific but earns its place by preventing the agent from assuming UI automation is involved.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, it omits scope details an agent would want: whether the stacking change is confined to the object's layer/group, whether it is reversible via the undo sibling, and what happens on an unknown UUID.

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 100% with both parameters documented and the command enum fully enumerated, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no extra meaning about UUID resolution or what each stacking command does relative to siblings/groups, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("stacking order of an object"), so the agent immediately knows what operation is performed. No sibling tool deals with z-order, so it is inherently differentiated, though the description never names that contrast 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. object must exist by UUID), and no mention of the undo sibling for reversal. The only context given is about execution mode, which is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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