Reorder a list's categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates display order and adds the constraint that categoryIds must be a full permutation. Yet it does not describe error behavior on invalid input, authorization requirements, or side effects. The essential behavior is clear, but deeper context (e.g., failure modes) is missing.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core action, and the second provides the essential constraint. Every word adds value.

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 reorder operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action and the critical input invariant. It does not cover edge cases like what happens if categoryIds is invalid, but the tool's simplicity and the given constraint make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that categoryIds must contain exactly the existing category ids and that the order in the array determines the display order, adding meaning beyond the plain array type in the schema. The listId parameter is only implied by 'list's categories', which is acceptable given the schema defines its type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('display order of a list's categories'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like remove_category or rename_category by focusing on reordering existing categories, not adding, removing, or editing them.

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 clearly implies this tool is used when reordering categories and provides a critical usage constraint: categoryIds must contain exactly the list's existing ids. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though no sibling tool serves the same reordering purpose.

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