Reposition a device on the Packet Tracer logical canvas by specifying its name and new center x/y coordinates to update topology layout.
Move a device to a new position on the logical canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | New canvas x of the device center. | |
| y | Yes | New canvas y of the device center. | |
| name | Yes | Device name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| model | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether coordinates are absolute or relative, whether the move is animated, or whether it requires a running simulation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb and resource lead, and no padding follows.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and three required params are fully documented in the schema. However, for a canvas-mutating tool with adjacent siblings, the description leaves selection context and coordinate semantics implicit.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented as canvas x/y of the device center and device name, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own naming, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (move) and resource (device) with the target surface (logical canvas position). It is clear what the tool does but does not distinguish itself from siblings like arrange_devices or move_to_location, which could also reposition things.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as move_to_location or arrange_devices. The agent gets no condition for selecting this tool over repositioning siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.