Edit existing schematic geometry

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/readOnlyHint) by disclosing the SHA-256 freshness precondition, rejection of unsupported targets and overflow, lossless preservation of unrelated bytes, pre-write backup, atomic replacement, and the important caveat that moving a symbol does not move its wires. These are exactly the side-effect and safety facts an agent needs before mutating binary geometry.

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 tight sentences with the operational mode (preview/apply) and target set front-loaded, followed by the safety preconditions and the gotcha warning. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool the description supplies the missing contract: how preview differs from apply, the integrity precondition, what is preserved, and how to verify the result. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including recordOffset provenance and the maxItems one-operation-per-offset rule. The description echoes the SHA-256 requirement but adds no format, range, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb pair (preview/apply) and enumerates the exact editable resources: GDF v6 root line coordinates, translations, symbol orientation, free annotation text. 'Existing records only' cleanly distinguishes it from creation siblings like gdf_create and gdf_construct.

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?

It gives a clear when-not ('Existing records only') and valuable post-edit guidance ('recompile/export to verify circuit behavior'). It stops short of naming alternatives, e.g. gdf_move_connected for symbol+wiring moves or gdf_text_edit for text-only changes, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to reach for.

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