Moves an unlocked footprint to specified absolute coordinates in millimeters, with optional rotation, without saving the board.
Move one unlocked component to absolute mm coordinates, with optional rotation; do not save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_mm | Yes | ||
| y_mm | Yes | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| rotation_degrees | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds two useful behavioral details: it only works on 'unlocked' components and it does not save the board, which is critical for the agent to know the persistence behavior. 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?
A single, tightly packed sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'do not save' note is placed at the end as a critical behavioral flag.
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?
Covers the essential facts: what is moved, to what coordinates, optional rotation, and the no-save behavior. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. Missing details like error handling for locked components are minor given the constraints already mentioned.
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 compensate. It clarifies that coordinates are absolute mm (matching x_mm/y_mm) and that rotation is optional (matching rotation_degrees with null default). It implies 'reference' refers to a component but does not explicitly describe it. Provides some value beyond the parameter names.
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?
States a specific action ('Move') on a resource ('unlocked component') with clear details: absolute mm coordinates, optional rotation, and a 'do not save' modifier. This distinguishes it from sibling list/edit tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies usage (move a component) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use it vs. other tools. It does mention the 'unlocked' constraint, which hints at when it might not be applicable, but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.