pbi_reorder_pages

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

With no annotations, the description discloses two key behaviors: it accepts IDs or visible names, and unmentioned pages retain their relative order at the end. This adds important operational context beyond a generic reorder, though it omits error handling, persistence, or other side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word contributes. No redundancy or bloat.

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, the description covers core semantics and an output schema handles return details. It could state project/session prerequisites, but the essential behavior for reordering is sufficiently explained.

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 schema only defines 'order' as an array of strings with no description. The description adds meaning by stating it accepts IDs or visible names, clarifying the value format of the primary parameter. 'request_id' is left unexplained, but it's likely a standard tracing field.

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's function: 'Fija el orden de las paginas del informe' (sets the order of report pages). It distinguishes from sibling page tools (duplicate, delete, rename) by focusing on ordering and explicitly noting that it accepts IDs or visible 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?

The description implies usage for reordering pages and provides a behavioral rule about unmentioned pages, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude other scenarios. No mention of prerequisites like opening a project or session.

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