ifcx_reorder_layers

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, idempotency, or permissions. The phrase 'strongest first' is ambiguous without domain knowledge, and no output or side effects are mentioned.

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 a single clear sentence with no redundant words. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resulting in incomplete guidance.

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?

Despite being a simple two-parameter tool, the description lacks essential context about reordering mechanics, return values, and domain-specific terms. The agent would need additional documentation to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially explains 'sessionIds' (by referencing 'by session IDs') but leaves 'stackId' unexplained. No details on array ordering constraints or meaning beyond the vague 'strongest first'.

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's action (Reorder), the resource (federated layer stack), and the method (by session IDs, strongest first). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ifcx_add_layer_to_stack or ifcx_create_layer_stack.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The agent is left to infer when reordering is appropriate, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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