setStickerPositionInSet

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 does disclose the mutation ('Move'), the operational scope constraint ('created by the bot'), and the success return value ('Returns True on success'), which is useful since no output schema exists. However, it does not mention failure behavior, error conditions, or the side effect that reordering shifts the positions of other stickers in the set.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the verb and core action are front-loaded, followed by the scoping constraint and the return value. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter operation.

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 2-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: the schema documents both parameters fully, the description states the precondition (bot-created set), and the return value is disclosed despite the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps—failure semantics and positional side effects on other stickers—are the only missing context, and they don't significantly hamper correct invocation.

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 both parameters (sticker file identifier and zero-based position with minimum 0) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Move), resource (a sticker in a sticker set), and objective (to a specific position), which unambiguously describes a reordering operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addStickerToSet, deleteStickerFromSet, replaceStickerInSet, and setStickerEmojiList, which all perform different actions on stickers. The added scope constraint 'created by the bot' further narrows the purpose.

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 provides an important precondition—the set must be created by the bot—which gives the agent a condition for when this tool applies. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives, which matters given the many sibling sticker tools with overlapping resources. Usage context is implied rather than stated as explicit selection criteria.

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