reorder_workflow_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention that this is a mutation operation, potential side effects, permissions required, error conditions, or what happens to existing activity order. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies workflow state.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool with siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, but the description adds no parameter information beyond what the tool name implies. The input schema documents two parameters (workflow_id and activity_ids), but the description doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or constraints. Baseline is 3 as the schema provides some structure, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Reorder activities in a workflow' clearly states the action (reorder) and resource (activities in a workflow), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'update_workflow_activity' or 'add_workflow_activity'. It lacks specificity about what 'reorder' entails operationally.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_workflow_activity' and 'get_workflow_activities', the description doesn't explain prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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