sch_move_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action, not side effects, behavior with snap_to_grid, whether connections are preserved, or error conditions. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope.

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 a simple move operation with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on return values, failure modes, and behavior of the optional snap_to_grid parameter. Not fully complete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that coordinates are absolute and the symbol must exist (reference). However, the optional snap_to_grid parameter is not mentioned, so coverage is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('existing symbol instance') and scope ('to a new absolute coordinate'). This distinguishes it from siblings like sch_add_symbol, sch_delete_symbol, and sch_auto_place_symbols.

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 for relocating an existing symbol to a precise coordinate, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as sch_auto_place_symbols or mention 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.