Reorders knowledge bases within a specified book stack so they match a required sequence, enabling custom organization through an authenticated move request.
排序分组（书架）内知识库顺序。需要 cookie+ctoken 认证。PUT /api/mine/book_stack/move，传有序 targetBookIds（数组顺序即最终排序）。常用于把分组内知识库按期望顺序重排。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_ids | Yes | 排序后的知识库 ID 数组（按期望顺序排列，必填） | |
| stack_id | Yes | 目标分组 ID（书架 ID，必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses required authentication (cookie+ctoken), the HTTP endpoint (PUT /api/mine/book_stack/move), and that the array order itself determines the final ordering. It stops short of covering failure modes, atomicity, or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.
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 three compact sentences, front-loads the purpose and authentication requirement, and includes endpoint and parameter semantics without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to call it correctly: purpose, auth, endpoint, and the key array-order rule. It leaves out error behavior and return expectations, which keeps it from being fully comprehensive.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds slightly more by stating '数组顺序即最终排序', but the schema's own description ('按期望顺序排列') already conveys the same idea. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb (排序/sort) and resource (分组/书架内知识库顺序), making the operation unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling yuque_update_book_stack, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 phrase '常用于把分组内知识库按期望顺序重排' implies a typical use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond authentication, and no named alternatives. Usage is inferable but not fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.