Reorder elements

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact side effect (WBS codes reassigned, task numbers untouched), the scope of application (main project, subprojects, portfolio), and undo granularity ('One undo step').

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before routing, scope, and undo notes. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given the single-parameter, fully-covered schema and the annotation-provided safety profile, the description covers the remaining agent needs: side effects, scope, alternative tool, and undo behavior.

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% and the enum is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the criterion to the 'Order by ...' menu, clarifying the semantics of the enum values beyond the raw field description.

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?

States a specific verb (reorders) and resource (project elements), then immediately disambiguates the mechanism: WBS codes are reassigned while task numbers stay untouched. It explicitly names the sibling rillsoft_project_renumber as the tool for the other case, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing to rillsoft_project_renumber for task numbering and clarifies that this mirrors the 'Order by ...' menu, including its scope across projects/subprojects/portfolios. It does not address the related siblings rillsoft_element_reorder or rillsoft_element_move, leaving one routing gap.

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