set_scene_item_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect (reorder z-order) and the index origin (0 = bottom of source list), but it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or any constraints beyond the index being >=0. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a clear Args block that documents each parameter. There is no redundant or irrelevant content; every sentence adds necessary value.

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 setter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and parameters. It is mostly complete, but it does not mention preconditions (e.g., the scene and item must exist) or the relationship to get_scene_item_list for obtaining valid IDs. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a concise explanation for each parameter (scene_name, scene_item_id, index), including the constraint '>= 0' and the interpretation of 0 as the bottom of the source list. This meaningfully supplements the bare schema, though it could go further by noting how to obtain valid scene_item_id values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder a scene item's stacking position (z-order).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_scene_item_index (which retrieves the index) and set_scene_item_transform (which changes transform, not order).

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 tool is used when you want to change an item's z-order, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over related operations.

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