move_component

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive or idempotent details. The description adds that rotation accepts None to keep current, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., effect on connected wires) or prerequisites (component must be placed). Behavioral transparency is minimal beyond the basic operation.

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 concise—one short sentence plus a clear Arg list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 covers the basic functionality and parameters. However, it omits context such as whether the component must already be placed, what happens if the reference is invalid, or any return value (even though output schema exists). For a mutation tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 provides brief meanings for each parameter (e.g., reference designator, new position, rotation with optional keep). This adds value over raw schema, but lacks details like units for x/y or that schematic_path is optional.

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 clearly states 'Move a placed component to a new position' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like move_footprint (PCB) by mentioning schematic_path, making it clear this operates on schematic components.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_footprint. Usage is implied from the description (schematic component), but no when-not-to-use or comparison with other move tools is provided.

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