move_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is reversible via Ctrl+Z, and displacement units follow the drawing unit. 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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then use context, then parameters and a concrete example — all in four short lines with no padding. The "Parâmetros:" line partially echoes the schema and the example, a minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations plus the undo note cover the mutation profile. What is missing is side-effect scope — whether dependent geometry (dimensions, block references) is affected and which document/layer context applies.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the displacement format ([dx, dy] or [dx, dy, dz]) and its unit, and the example pins handle as a string identifier ("2F1A"). "Handle" itself is only implicitly defined as coming from query_entities, leaving a small gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource — moving an entity by a displacement vector — and even names the unit semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from copy_entity at the verb level, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with other mutation siblings like dxf_modify_entities or copy_entity, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"QUANDO USAR: reposicionar um item já localizado (query_entities)" gives a clear use context and points at the sibling used to obtain the handle prerequisite. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a direct alternative for repositioning, so no exclusion guidance.

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