modx_reorder_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only says values are 'applied per resource'. It does not state whether changing parent moves a subtree, whether URIs/children are affected, whether an all-or-nothing transaction applies on partial failure, or what is returned. For a bulk write operation this is a significant gap.

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 tight sentences with the operation and payload format front-loaded and no filler. The terse 'applied per resource' fragment still earns its place by conveying batch semantics.

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 bulk tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits side effects of parent changes, failure behavior, and return value. The nested item structure is sketched but not fully explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it spells out the items shape [{id, menuindex, parent?}] and that entries are applied per resource, clarifying the batch semantics. However, it adds no meaning about what menuindex values imply (relative ordering, gaps, duplicates) or what happens when parent is omitted, leaving the schema to speak for itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reorder resources in the tree') plus the mechanism (setting menuindex, optionally parent), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate from any sibling tool, but no sibling in the list performs reordering, so the practical risk of confusion is low.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions needed), and no guidance on how this differs from generic resource update or bulk tools such as modx_bulk_resources. The agent must infer that this is the tool for ordering the resource tree.

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