basecamp_reposition_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the basic action but does not mention side effects, whether it is destructive, permission requirements, reversibility, or how the operation affects other steps. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately conveys the action. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately sized for the simple operation described.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain expected behavior on success or failure, whether the position is zero-indexed (though schema does), or any constraints. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema covers 3 of 4 parameters (75%), but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the purpose of project_id or any relationships between parameters beyond what is already stated. Since coverage is below 80%, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 'Change the position of a step within a card' uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('position of a step within a card'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_steps, add_step, update_step, and move_card. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_step or move_card. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention any related tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and action, not explicitly described.

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