move_hierarchical_sheet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the modification nature is known. The description adds 'including all pins' which clarifies the scope of the move, but it does not disclose side effects like connectivity changes or undo 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action sentence, followed by a structured Args list. It is concise, though the Args section could be tightened; overall it earns its place.

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, the description covers the move operation, all pins, and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks mention of potential side effects, but the core invocation context is 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 schema provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the 'Args' section fully explains each parameter: UUID purpose, X/Y in mm, and schematic_path optional semantics with default behavior. This greatly exceeds the schema by adding units, context, and defaults.

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 a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a hierarchical sheet block') with a notable scope ('including all pins'). This distinguishes it from siblings like move_component or move_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?

The description implies usage by naming the operation but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like add_hierarchical_sheet and remove_hierarchical_sheet exist, but no comparison is provided.

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