move_shape

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It specifies relative offset and units but omits details like coordinate system, cumulative moves, or side effects (e.g., snapping, undo). Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with key information. Every word 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 no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the tool is simple but the description is insufficiently complete. Lacks details on coordinate system, constraints, and expected outcome, which are important for precise use.

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%, so the description adds some value by clarifying that delta_x_mm and delta_y_mm are relative offsets in millimeters. However, it doesn't explain shape_id or provide full param context.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'move', the resource 'shape', and specifies it's a relative offset in millimeters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_footprint or move_track, though it doesn't explicitly state it's for generic graphic shapes.

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 tool versus alternatives like move_footprint or rotate_shape. The description lacks context about shape types (e.g., graphic vs. footprint) and when not to use it.

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