Reorder folders in a collection

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

Annotations already signal a write operation with readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the previous state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted with nuvio_undo, which is a meaningful safety property not present in the annotations. It also communicates the exact-once constraint, giving the agent expectations about input validation.

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 tight sentences: it front-loads the operation, then states the critical input rule and the undo safety net. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 simple reorder operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the exact composition of ordered_folder_ids)Skip, the collection scope, and the rollback mechanism. The main gaps are the absence of any note about profile_id and no mention of what the tool returns after a successful reorder.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains ordered_folder_ids as the complete list of folder ids in the desired orderched and implies that collection_id refers to the target collection. However, profile_id is not mentioned, and no types or formats are clarified beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Set folder order,' a specific verb and resource, and the title identifies the scope as folders in a collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvio_reorder_collections, which reorders collections, and nuvio_update_collection_folder, which updates a single folder rather than the whole ordering.

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 implies the use case by saying 'Set folder order' and gives a key operational rule: every folder id must be supplied exactly once. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as nuvio_reorder_collections or nuvio_update_collection_folder, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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