pcb_move_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., updating existing position, whether rotation is preserved), coordinate origin, or any impact on the design.

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, directly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and quickly conveys the essential action.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the operation, the description is under-specified for a PCB tool. It does not mention the coordinate system, units, or optional rotation. The output schema exists but is not described, and there are no annotations to fill the gap.

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 no explanation of parameters beyond the schema names. It doesn't clarify that reference is the designator, x_mm/y_mm are coordinates, or what rotation_deg does. The schema itself has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but does not.

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 the action (move) and resource (footprint), and specifies absolute location, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like pcb_align_footprints or pcb_auto_place_by_schematic.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other placement tools.

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