polynodes_rearrange_trigger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that a JSON confirmation is returned, but fails to disclose the key behavioral fact that this is a stateful toggle (calling with state=0 turns Re-Arr mode off) rather than a fire-and-forget trigger.

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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. But the boilerplate 'Args:/Returns:' block consumes most of the text while conveying almost nothing ('params: state', 'JSON confirmation'), so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 one-parameter mode switch sitting among dozens of near-identically named siblings, the definition omits what Re-Arr mode audibly does, when to enable it, and how the state toggle behaves. Annotations and the output schema cover safety and response shape, but the functional gap remains significant.

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% at the top level, so the description must carry the meaning of 'params', and it only restates 'params: state' with no explanation of the 0.0/1.0 semantics or what happens on transition. It adds essentially nothing beyond the parameter name.

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 gives a verb (Trigger) and a resource (Re-Arr mode) and adds a parenthetical gloss ('rearranges input sample chunks'), so the general intent is inferable. However, 'Re-Arr mode' is unexplained jargon, and the tool is not distinguished from any of its ~40 siblings (e.g. polynodes_navigation_random_trigger), which also carry 'trigger'-style names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus the many sibling switch/trigger tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The word 'Trigger' even suggests a one-shot action, while the schema shows an on/off mode switch, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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