lib_move_footprints

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the destructive default (delete_from_source=True), what is copied (all pads and primitives via a full copy), skip/overwrite behavior, the one-call vs. list-fetch cost difference for names vs. regex, and what dry_run suppresses.

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 core action and the sibling relationship, then structured into Args/Returns. Slightly redundant in places (the parenthetical 'via a full copy' and the length of the dry_run rationale), but every section is scannable and earns its space.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and a destructive default, the description covers selection precedence, overwrite/skip logic, the dry-run escape hatch, and return shapes for both success and dry-run modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely without opening the schema.

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%, but the Args block documents every one of the 7 parameters with meaning beyond the schema's bare types — defaults, precedence between names and name_regex, matching semantics for the regex, and the effect of each boolean.

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 verb (move) and resource (footprints between PcbLibs) with a precise scope note. It explicitly positions itself against lib_move_components and notes the copy-then-delete semantics that distinguish it from lib_copy_footprint.

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?

Gives explicit selection rules (names OR name_regex, names takes precedence), states that existing dest footprints are skipped unless overwrite=True, and recommends a dry_run specifically when name_regex is used. It also explains why: the pattern is applied with `search` so short patterns over-select and the default deletes them.

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