reorder_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: the entire execution order is replaced by supplying all cell ids. It does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the runbook is in a particular state. Partial but useful transparency.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the crucial 'all cell ids' requirement and a compact Args section. No filler words are present, though 'Provide all cell ids in the desired sequence' slightly echoes the Args section without harming efficiency.

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 tool is simple (2 required params, no enums) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose and parameter semantics well. It lacks explicit usage guidance and side-effect disclosure, but for a straightforward reordering operation, the description is sufficiently complete.

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. It does so thoroughly: runbook_id is explained as 'The runbook to reorder' and cell_ids is explained as 'All cell ids in the desired order' with an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema definition.

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 action and resource: 'Set the execution order of cells.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_cell, update_cell, and delete_cell, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 instruction 'Provide all cell ids in the desired sequence' implies the usage context: call this when you need to reorder all cells. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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