move_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It contributes the useful fact that ordering is semantically meaningful, but says nothing about whether the move is reversible (undoable), what happens to displaced effects, or permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded in parentheses; nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity contributes to the parameter ambiguity noted above.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. At minimum the index/to pairing and layer scoping needed explanation; the description supplies none of it.

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 must compensate for all four parameters. It never explains what 'index', 'to', 'layer', or 'project' mean, leaving the agent to guess which argument is the source position and which is the destination.

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 (reorder) and resource (effects), and the parenthetical example clarifies what reordering means operationally. It is clearly distinguishable from add_effect, update_effect, and remove_effect by the 'reorder' action, though it never names those siblings 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?

The 'order matters' note implies this tool is for sequencing effects, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as remove_effect + add_effect to achieve the same result. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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