Set Schematic Property Position

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds that only Reference and Value are supported, and that rotation/hiding is optional. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it clarifies the scope of the mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then constraint, then alternative. No fluff.

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 functionality, constraints, and an alternative, and with the schema and output schema present, it's sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides a high-level summary of the parameters (position, rotation, visibility) but no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 action (Move), the target (component's Reference or Value field label), the coordinate system (absolute x,y in mm), and optional rotation/hiding. It distinguishes itself from autoplace_schematic_fields by naming it as an alternative and from batch tool by implying individual use.

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 explicitly recommends using autoplace_schematic_fields for placing all fields automatically, providing a clear alternative. It also constrains supported properties to Reference and Value, giving context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly mention batch_set_schematic_property_positions as an option for multiple components.

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