reorder-project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the exact mutation (PATCH /folders/{folder_uuid}/move with {after_uuid}), which tells the agent this is a write with a specific payload shape. It omits permission requirements, side effects on other projects' ordering, and whether the move is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the parameter rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the endpoint, and both parameters adequately. Missing only the failure/edge conditions (invalid after_uuid, cross-scope targets) and any hint about what the call returns.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds a meaningful restatement of the null/omit case for after_uuid that reinforces the schema's semantics. It does not explain what 'scope' means for folder_uuid or whether after_uuid must belong to the same scope.

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 and resource ('Reorder a project within its scope') and names the underlying API operation, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling update-project, leaving the agent to infer that reorder is ordering-only while update handles fields.

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 concrete invocation guidance for after_uuid (omit or null to move to top), which is effectively a usage rule. But it never says when to choose this over update-project or when reordering is appropriate, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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