eda_dmt_schematic_reorder_schematic_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the return is a Promise<boolean> indicating success, and 'reorder' implies mutation. But it does not state whether the operation is destructive/reversible, whether it persists, what failure conditions exist, or what happens if the schematicUuid is invalid. The minimal return-type note is the only behavioral disclosure.

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 very short, but it is essentially a raw API signature dump with a two-line Chinese gloss rather than a crafted, agent-oriented explanation. The signature duplicates information already available in the tool name, and the Chinese text ('reorder schematic pages', 'returns: whether the operation succeeded') is not optimized for English-speaking agents.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter that is an array of structured items, the description should explain how to construct the array and what the operation requires. It covers neither the structure of schematicPageItemsArray nor the role of windowId in selecting the target schematic, leaving a non-trivial gap for correct invocation.

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 signature line adds the parameter names and types (schematicUuid: string, schematicPageItemsArray: Array<IDMT_SchematicPageItem>), which the schema itself does not provide since its 'args' property is just a generic array of untyped items. However, it does not explain the meaning of IDMT_SchematicPageItem, how the array order maps to the new page order, or how these bind to the args array positionally.

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 verb 'reorder' and the resource 'schematic pages' via the signature line and the Chinese phrase '重新排序原理图图页'. The tool name itself is also self-descriptive. However, it does not articulate how this differs from sibling page tools (create/copy/delete/modify page), leaving sibling differentiation to the name alone.

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, no preconditions (e.g., schematic must exist or be open), and no mention of when reordering is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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