reorder_nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: "index 0 is the back-most layer," which clarifies the z-order semantics of the operation.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded before the z-order detail. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive reorder operation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the core operation and index semantics but omits edge cases an agent would want: how the `nodeIds` array order maps to the final layout and what happens if a node is not a direct child of `parentId`.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It clarifies the crucial meaning of `index` (0 = back-most layer) but says nothing about `parentId` or `nodeIds`, leaving array ordering semantics and validation behavior undocumented.

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 ("Reorder") and resource ("direct child layers") and constrains the scope to a single parent of type PAGE, FRAME, COMPONENT or SECTION. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling reparent_nodes, which moves nodes across parents, though no sibling is named 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to an alternative such as reparent_nodes. The scope constraint ("within one ...") hints that it stays inside a single parent but stops short of stating that usage condition.

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