Reorder dropdown value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It accurately states that the tool moves a value, but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether it triggers side effects (e.g., on dependent views), or if specific permissions are required. The description is correct but minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Move an existing dropdown value') and immediately communicates the tool's core function. Every word earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a straightforward move operation with 4 parameters. However, it lacks information on return behavior (e.g., confirmation, updated order), error conditions (e.g., invalid position), or constraints (e.g., whether both before/after can be specified). It feels slightly incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by summarizing the operation's parameters ('Move an existing dropdown value') and implicitly clarifying the role of 'after_enum_option' and 'before_enum_option' as positioning parameters. However, it does not explain the mutual exclusivity or optionality of these positioning params, which could cause misuse.

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 ('Move') and clearly identifies the resource ('dropdown value') and the operation context ('within its custom field'). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like 'enum_option_create' or 'enum_option_update', which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enum_option_update' (which might also affect options) or the other reorder tools (e.g., 'section_reorder'). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the correct context from the name and siblings alone.

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