move_component

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), leaving the description to carry behavioral disclosure. The description adds key traits: it warns on overlap and lists orphaned wire endpoints, providing insight into the tool's side effects beyond simple mutation. There is 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?

The description is two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds valuable behavioral details, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description implies the return value (warnings, orphaned wire list) and covers the operation fully for a 5-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage. It provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds overall context but does not provide per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema states. The baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 specifies the action (move and/or rotate), the target (component in .asc schematic), and distinguishes from siblings like add_component or remove_component by detailing its unique side effects (overlap warnings, orphaned wires). It is a specific verb+resource pairing with no ambiguity.

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 makes clear when to use the tool (to reposition a component) and provides context about warnings and orphaned wires, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The need for the tool is implied by the action, but exclusive guidance is absent.

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