memorable_reorder_pinned

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the effect (changes the top-of-workspace display order), but omits whether the supplied array replaces the entire pinned order or is a partial reorder, what happens to pinned IDs left out of the array, and whether non-pinned or invalid IDs cause errors.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the effect are stated immediately. The trailing location clause ('displayed at the top of the Memorable workspace') is slightly verbose but does add scoping information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves a material ambiguity: whether memory_ids must enumerate all pinned memories (full replacement) or only the ones being moved. That distinction changes how an agent should construct the call.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Array of pinned memory IDs in their desired sequential order'. The description's 'sequential order' phrasing echoes but does not extend that meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Update the sequential order of pinned memories') and scopes it to the workspace display, which clearly separates it from memorable_toggle_pin (pin state) and memorable_update_memory (content). It stops short of naming a sibling as an alternative, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for rearranging already-pinned memories, but there is no explicit 'use this when... / not this when...' guidance, no mention of the prerequisite that memories must be pinned first, and no pointer to memorable_toggle_pin for changing pin membership.

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