Move Schematic Component

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that wire endpoints touching the component's pins are stretched by default. This is a key side-effect not captured in annotations. Since annotations already hint at destructiveness and the description provides additional nuance, it earns a strong score.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and provide key default behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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 move operation, the description covers the core action and default wire behavior, which is sufficient. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., what happens when preserveWires=false) explicitly, but the schema covers the parameter and given the output schema exists, this is acceptable. Overall, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the default behavior of the preserveWires parameter and its effect on wires, which is not fully captured by the schema's description. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 states the tool's function: 'Move a placed symbol to a new position in the schematic.' It uses a specific verb ('move'), identifies the resource ('placed symbol' / 'schematic'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'move_component' (which applies to boards) and other schematic editing tools. The wording is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate (moving schematic components) and mentions the default behavior of preserveWires, which helps understand the move operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use move_component for PCB moves'), so it falls short of a 5.

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