reorder_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: side effects are 'none', the request is 'validated and refused', and the exact refusal tokens are named (CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE with API evidence in details, and BAD_INPUT for non-permutation input). It even specifies validation order — input validation happens before the capability refusal.

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?

Front-loaded with the crucial fact that the operation is impossible, then layered as side effects, example, and edge cases. Every sentence carries information; none is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does (CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE with details, BAD_INPUT). With one param, no annotations, and a documented refusal path, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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 schema documents nothing about 'order'. The description compensates by defining it as a permutation of the regular track indexes and gives a concrete example (reorder_tracks([2, 0, 1])). This adds real meaning beyond the bare array-of-integers schema.

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 states a specific verb (reorder) and resource (every track at once) and immediately declares that the capability is unavailable via Live's API. The scope 'every track at once' distinguishes it from the single-track siblings like move_track and move_track_to_group without needing their schemas.

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?

It clearly signals that this is a capability-denial probe: 'Live's API cannot do this' and 'the request is validated and refused.' An agent knows the call will not perform a real reorder, which is strong context. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., move_track) for actually moving tracks, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use routing.

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