thincms_reorder_module_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool expects all items to be passed in desired order and that types share a single order space, which is helpful. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as idempotency, what happens if items are omitted, or any side effects like confirmation requirements (though confirmProductionWrite parameter hints at write operations).

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 consists of two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the goal, and the second adds a critical constraint. It is perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 that the tool has no output schema and four parameters with full schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It explains the shared order and the requirement to pass all items. While it could be more explicit about validation and missing items, it is sufficient for a straightforward reorder operation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that the three item types coexist in a single sort order space and that the items array should contain all items. This helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose more deeply.

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 uses the verb 'Reorder' and specifies the resource 'lessons, quizzes, and workbooks within a module', which is distinct from sibling reordering tools that target different scopes (e.g., modules or collection items). It also explains the shared sort order space, adding precision.

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 implicitly defines its use case by specifying 'within a module' and noting that all three item types share a single sort order. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context is clear enough to guide appropriate selection. However, it could explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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