move_footprint

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds: the move creates one undo step (Ctrl+Z in KiCAD), modifies the board (WARNING), child pads follow automatically, and dry_run preview shows current position, target position, and delta. This enriches the destructive behavior with actionable details.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: action, identification, coordinate system, undo behavior, dry-run purpose, warning, and child-pad behavior. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (positioning, rotation, dry-run, undo, destructive nature), the description covers all critical aspects: how to identify the footprint, coordinate units and direction, preview capability, undo step, and consequences. The output schema exists, so return-format details are not required in the description. No gaps.

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?

Even though the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds semantics: 'mm relative to board origin', 'Y increases toward bottom of the board', 'reference designator examples', 'dry_run=true shows current/target/delta', and 'rotation omit keeps current rotation'. This significantly aids correct invocation beyond raw 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Moves a footprint (component) to a new position on the board and optionally changes its rotation angle.' It clearly identifies the footprint via reference designator and distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit_footprint by focusing on positional/rotation changes.

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 clear usage context: positions are in millimeters from board origin, Y axis direction follows KiCAD convention, and dry_run should be used to preview changes. It also directs users to list_footprints to discover available references. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus edit_footprint, the positional focus and dry-run guidance are clear.

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