Sort Sharelist

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description aligns with these by describing a reordering mutation. It adds useful context such as 'by id', symbol ordering, and upstream response, but it does not clarify what destructive consequences might occur (e.g., whether a partial symbol list removes omitted securities).

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?

Three short sentences deliver the action, required inputs, ordering semantics, and response behavior with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only 3 parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essentials: what to pass (id, symbols in order), the action, and the response. It does not detail the upstream response structure, but 'Returns upstream API response on success' is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by making explicit that the symbol array must be in the desired new order, which is central to how the tool behaves.

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 action ('Reorder securities') and the resource ('a community sharelist by id'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling sharelist tools like sharelist_add, sharelist_remove, and sharelist_create.

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 makes the intended use clear: rearranging the order of symbols in an existing sharelist. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives, but the operation is distinct enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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