reorder_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that positions are 1-indexed and must be unique across variants, and that changes affect display order. It does not mention potential side effects like error handling or permissions, but for a mutation tool, it sufficiently explains the core behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description fully covers constraints and usage. It explains position indexing, uniqueness, and partial updates. The agent can confidently invoke this tool without missing context.

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 input schema provides minimal descriptions for productId and positions, but the description adds significant meaning: positions are 1-indexed, must be unique, and only changing variants need to be provided. This compensates for schema brevity and gives the agent clear instructions on how to fill the fields.

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 'Set' and resource 'display order of variants on a product', specifying that it affects order on product page and admin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_variants' or 'create_variants' which handle different aspects of variants.

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 description provides a key guideline: 'Only provide the variants whose positions are changing — others stay where they are.' This tells the agent how to structure input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though no sibling tool exists for reordering, making the context clear enough.

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