Reorder Issue

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully implies the effect is limited to manually sorted contexts, but says nothing about permissions required, what happens if a neighbor ID is invalid, or why the operation is non-idempotent.

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. The core action and scope come first, then the parameter disambiguation, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering semantics, the definition is adequate on the tricky move_* parameters but leaves issue_iid/project_id and the response behavior unstated. It is callable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 burden, and it handles the two genuinely confusing parameters well: it explains that move_after_id/move_before_id take global 'id' values rather than 'iid' and clarifies the neighbor direction. issue_iid and project_id are left unaddressed, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('change ... relative position') and resource ('an issue') and scopes the effect to 'boards and manually sorted lists', which separates it from gitlab_update_issue. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'boards and manually sorted lists' implies the context in which this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus gitlab_update_issue and no stated preconditions (e.g., that the list must be manually sorted for the reorder to take effect).

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