reorder_formulas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'reorder,' which implies mutation but does not explain persistence, validation, error handling, scope (e.g., which template), or any side effects. The agent cannot anticipate what happens beyond the immediate action.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no extraneous wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover essential behavior. It lacks details on scope (which template/formula set), idempotency, error behavior for invalid ids, and whether the reorder is persistent. The minimalism leaves critical context unstated.

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?

The schema defines 'ids' as an array of numbers but provides no description. The phrase '按 ID 顺序' (in ID order) hints that the array specifies the order, but it is ambiguous—it could mean sorting by ascending IDs rather than taking the provided sequence as the new order. The description adds minimal clarification and relies on inference.

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 clearly states the action (reorder), the target (expressionItems), and the manner (by ID order), making it distinct from sibling tools like add_formula or list_formulas. Even without a title, the verb+resource+modifier 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is purely a declarative statement, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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