move_footprint

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

Annotations are all false (no hints), so the description carries the burden. It discloses a significant behavioral detail: specifying the 'other side' in the layer parameter triggers a full flip with mirroring of pads, graphics, and text justification, matching KiCad's flip, and that it refuses to flip footprints with unmeasured constructs rather than half-transforming. This is valuable transparency beyond the basic action. It does not contradict 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?

The description is well-structured with a lead sentence and an Args list. The layer parameter's explanation is detailed but necessary for understanding a critical side effect, and every sentence contributes. It is slightly long but not verbose, earning a high score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, flip behavior, optional path) and lack of annotations, the description covers key edge cases (flip and refusal) and parameter semantics. It does not explain potential effects on existing placement (e.g., does it move the footprint regardless of overlapping?) or whether the PCB file is modified, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. Overall, it is fairly complete for its domain.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains all six parameters: reference (with example), x and y (new positions), rotation (None = keep current), layer (includes the detailed flip behavior), and pcb_path (optional with default). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 starts with a clear, specific action: 'Move a footprint to a new position,' which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose (verb 'move' + resource 'footprint'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like place_footprint, remove_footprint, and move_component by specifying the PCB footprint context, making it unambiguous.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and parameter details. There is no mention of situations where this tool is preferred over place_footprint (for initial placement) or move_component (for schematic components). Usage is implied by the tool name and action but not explicitly stated, making it a gap for agents deciding among similar tools.

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