appflowy_reorder_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool chains calls and skips pages already in place, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, permissions, and what happens to unmentioned pages.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and options, the second explains the implementation. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

The description covers the main functionality and implementation detail, but given there is no output schema, it does not describe the return value or error conditions. It also does not mention constraints beyond the parent_view_id note already in the schema.

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 schema itself contains detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context about the two-mode approach and the chaining mechanism, but the schema already explains mutual exclusivity. The description provides a useful overview but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema.

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 direct child pages of a space or page') and the resource ('direct child pages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'appflowy_move_page' which moves a single page. It also specifies the two modes: explicit page_ids or sort_by.

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 explains the two usage modes and mentions that the tool chains per-page move endpoints due to the lack of a bulk endpoint, implying performance consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for moving a single page) or provide alternatives.

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