move_component

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rotation None keeps the current rotation, but it does not mention side effects like whether the schematic file is modified in place, how connectivity is affected, or if the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean args list. Every line adds value—no filler, and the format makes parameters easy to scan.

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?

The description fully documents all parameters and a clear purpose, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It lacks explicit behavioral context (e.g., file modification side effects) and differentiation from siblings, but for a simple move operation with a clear argument list, it is largely complete.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning to every parameter: reference is a reference designator (e.g., 'R1'), x/y are new positions, rotation is in degrees with explicit None behavior, and schematic_path is optional with a configured default. This is essential given the schema has 0% description coverage.

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 opens with 'Move a placed component to a new position,' which uses a specific verb ('move') and resource ('placed component') to clearly state the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_component (adding new components) and move_footprint (PCB-level moving).

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 for already-placed schematic components (via 'placed component') and clarifies the optional schematic_path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include exclusions. Sibling tools like place_component and remove_component are not referenced, leaving some ambiguity about selection.

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