Batch Move Components

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses transactional rollback ('If one reference/spec is invalid, no components are moved') and the default save behavior. It does not describe all side effects, but given destructiveHint=true already signals modification, the added context is valuable.

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 front-loaded purpose and no filler. Every sentence contributes behavioral or usage information.

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 tool with 3 parameters, a nested moves object, and an output schema, the description covers core behavior, rollback, and save defaults. It leaves dryRun to the schema description, which is acceptable given the schema richness.

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 carries most parameter meaning. The description adds context about reference/spec validity and save default but does not detail the placement spec format, which the schema already documents.

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 opens with 'Move multiple PCB components transactionally,' clearly specifying the verb, resource, and batch nature. It distinguishes from sibling move_component by emphasizing multiple components and all-or-nothing behavior.

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 conveys that this tool is for transactional multi-component moves, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name single-component alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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