move_layer_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'updates the saved .aprx project when save=true' and uses map.moveLayer internally. This is adequate for a non-destructive reordering operation, though it could note that the change is persistent if saved.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first defines the action and method, and the second provides usage examples and the save behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple reordering tool, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and the important save effect. The output schema (if present) would cover return values. With no annotations, the description compensates well.

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 already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters (e.g., aprx_path, layer_name, position). The description adds general usage context but does not elaborate on parameter specifics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3.

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 moves a named layer relative to a reference layer in the map drawing order. The verb 'move' and resource 'layer' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like add_layer_to_map or remove_layer_from_map.

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 context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'control cartographic stacking') and gives concrete examples ('placing boundaries above imagery'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool over unrelated ones.

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