penpot_reorder_shapes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly describes behavioral traits: implicit z-order, no reparenting, actions and their effects, and no-op conditions. Covers edge cases.

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?

Description is information-dense and well-structured, front-loading purpose then detailing actions. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 complexity and no output schema, description covers action semantics, constraints, and key differentiators. Lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a reorder tool.

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 0%, but description adds significant meaning: explains action enum values and their semantics, mentions targetId for before/after. FileId, pageId, shapeId are standard context from sibling tools.

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?

Description clearly states the tool changes stacking order among siblings, matching Penpot UI actions. Distinguishes from sibling tools like penpot_update_shapes by explicitly noting that reparenting is not done here.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each action (front, back, forward, backward, before, after), including no-op conditions for forward/backward at ends. Provides alternative for reparenting (penpot_update_shapes).

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