Reorder Component

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnly=false, destructive=false). The description adds the relative before/after positioning context but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., components in different containers) or additional side effects.

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 tightly structured with a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, and a concise example. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose makes the operation immediately clear.

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 simple mutation tool with fully described parameters, the description is nearly complete. It includes the core operation, all required parameters, and an example. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but those are not critical for this straightforward reorder action.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description largely repeats this information, adding only an example that clarifies parameter usage without introducing new semantic detail.

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 reorders a component relative to another component on the canvas, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like design_add_component or design_update_component by focusing on relative ordering.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'reorder', and an example demonstrates a typical call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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