Move Footprint Text

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies footprint text independently of the footprint, which complements the destructiveHint annotation. It adds value by clarifying the scope of modification (text fields only) but does not elaborate on potential side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and no redundant detail. Extremely efficient.

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?

The description covers the core operation and scope sufficiently, and the input schema fully documents all parameters. The optional properties (layer, visibility, rotation) are not explained in the description but are self-explanatory in the schema. Given the presence of an output schema and full param coverage, it's adequately complete.

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?

The description clarifies that the 'field' parameter can be Reference, Value, or user text, going beyond the schema's 'e.g. reference or value'. It also reinforces that coordinates apply to the text, not the footprint. Since schema coverage is 100%, this modest addition earns a 4.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: moving or updating footprint text fields (Reference/Value/user) without relocating the footprint itself. This differentiates it from sibling tools like move_component, which moves the entire component.

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 'without moving the footprint' provides context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, indicating it's for text-only adjustments. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions.

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