reorder_channels

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It never states that reordering shifts the positions of channels not listed, that the operation is a mutation with permission requirements, or what happens when both lists are omitted; the dry_run parameter is described only in the schema.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the input variants enumerated second, with no filler. The phrasing of the enumeration is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating tool with six all-optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the intent but omits the consequences of a wrong ordering, permission requirements, and the no-op/empty-input case. Adequate to start a call, incomplete for an agent to call it safely.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description earns more by clarifying the interplay the schema leaves implicit: channels may be given as the ordering for a single category rather than the whole server, and categories implies a complete top-to-bottom list. It still does not connect move_to_category or dry_run to these ordering modes.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Put channels in an order') and immediately enumerates the three supported modes of ordering (categories, one category's channels, or both). It is clear what the tool accomplishes, though it never names the sibling edit_channel or otherwise contrasts itself with alternatives that also touch channel positioning.

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 second sentence is really input-shape guidance: supply the full category order, or the channels of one category, or both. That is useful implied usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as manage-channel permissions, and no warning about calling it with neither list.

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