Move or rotate symbols with checked reconnection

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real value beyond them: refusal conditions, precondition that compilation/export/simulation exist, wire-splitting behavior, and hash/preview/backup transaction semantics. Strong disclosure of mutation consequences.

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?

Dense and largely front-loaded, but the telegraphic fragment style ('Hash/preview/backup transaction', 'Bus bundles/unknown topology refused') sacrifices readability. Every clause carries information, yet the compression hurts comprehension.

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 complex destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, refusals, wire behavior, and transaction semantics. Safety profile is covered by annotations. Fairly complete, though alternative tools are not addressed.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions orientation0..7, grid8, and the transaction model, adding marginal color but no syntax beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: move/rotate GDF6 placements on a grid with reconnection awareness. Distinguishes from gdf_edit/gdf_geometry siblings by emphasizing connectivity-preserving move. Title restates but description leads with the actual operation.

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?

Refusal conditions (bus bundles, unknown topology, changed terminal partition) imply when the tool will not work, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus gdf_edit, gdf_geometry, or gdf_wire_cleanup. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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