catia_move_component

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description's 'pre-place it' hints at a temporary/repositioning workflow. It does not disclose whether the translation is absolute or relative to the current position, which is the key behavioral question for a move operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the intent front-loaded and no filler. Not bloated, but also too thin for a seven-parameter mutation.

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?

Seven parameters, near-zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations covering the geometry semantics. An agent still cannot determine units, reference frame, or whether motion is relative, so the definition is incomplete for the complexity of the operation.

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 only 14% (only rx carries 'degrees'), so the description must carry the load and it does not: tx/ty/tz units, whether rotations are applied about the component origin or the assembly origin, and rotation order are all unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (translate/rotate) and resource (component), and the parenthetical 'before constraining it, to pre-place it' separates it from the constraint tools in the sibling list. It is clear what the tool does, though it never states the reference frame for the motion.

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?

Gives a usage context ('before constraining it, to pre-place it') that implies ordering relative to catia_coincidence_constraint and friends, but names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if the component is already constrained).

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