position_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the operation clearly as an absolute repositioning in millimeters from the sheet origin, which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose whether this mutates the document, whether it is reversible, or whether it requires an active or specific page.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, units, and coordinate frame with no wasted words. It earns its place entirely.

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 core invocation is clear for the required parameters, and the output schema covers return values. But the description does not address the optional 'page' parameter, which context signals show is present, nor does it clarify which plan or view is being positioned. This is a moderate completeness gap for a simple tool.

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 meaningful semantics for the required x and y parameters by specifying units (mm), reference point (sheet's bottom-left), and the center-of-plan behavior. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the optional 'page' parameter is not explained at all, leaving a coverage gap.

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 states a specific action ('Move the plan'), the exact target behavior ('its centre is at (x, y) mm'), and the coordinate reference ('sheet's bottom-left corner'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_view or add_plan_view by describing what position adjustment does.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_view or create_drawing_page. The description only explains the operation, not the conditions under which it should be chosen, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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