Reorder children

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

It discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: WBS codes are reassigned, an order that separates a display row is refused and names affected UUIDs, dissolveRows can override that refusal, and the operation is a single undo step. These are concrete mutation and error-handling details an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and packs important constraints into compact sentences. Every sentence contributes operational meaning without padding.

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?

The definition covers what the tool does, its mutation behavior, refusal condition, override option, and undo semantics. With an output schema and annotations present, it is largely complete; the main missing element is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling reorder/move tools.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds some useful context by defining what a 'child' is, but most parameter-level meaning is already present in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Reorders') and resource ('every direct child of a subproject'), then defines a child as a task or subproject. This is precise enough to distinguish it from more general element movement or project sorting tools.

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 explains the operation and its refusal behavior, but it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as rillsoft_element_move or rillsoft_project_sort. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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