Reorder task

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the container-scoped behavior, the supported movement modes, and the consequence that reordering 'Controls next action in sequential projects.' It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but reordering is a low-risk mutation and no contradiction exists.

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 tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the action, resource, and placement modes; the second explains the sequential-project effect. No repetition of annotations or schema details, and no filler.

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?

With a rich schema, output schema, and the keywords in the description, an agent can determine what to supply and what the call will accomplish. The only mild gap is that the exact required combination (taskId or taskName plus one placement mode) is left implicit because all parameters are marked optional in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the placement categories but does not add per-parameter semantics that the schema doesn't already provide. The schema descriptions already explain taskId vs taskName, sibling requirements, and the move_task alternative.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder a task within its container.' It then lists the exact placement modes (before/after a sibling, beginning/ending) and gives the domain purpose ('Controls next action in sequential projects'). This clearly distinguishes it from move_task, which relocates across containers, even though that sibling is not named in the prose.

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?

'Within its container' signals this is not for relocation, and the schema's sibling-target descriptions explicitly reject cross-container references and say 'Use move_task to relocate.' Adding 'Controls next action in sequential projects' provides practical context for when reordering matters. The main gap is that the prose itself doesn't explicitly say 'for container changes, use move_task,' though the schema supplies that guidance.

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