move_component

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it uses IComponent2.Transform2, rebuilds, and returns requested vs post-rebuild pose plus a 'moved' boolean. It warns that 'moved=False' indicates the component is fixed or mate-driven, revealing a critical edge case.

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?

Well-structured with a brief purpose, detailed args, and return info. However, includes Spanish phrase 'Mover componente' which is redundant given the English title. Otherwise concise and front-loaded.

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 description is complete for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It explains the return value, edge case of failed movement, and prerequisites (component name from get_active_assembly_info). No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds complete meaning for each parameter: component_name is an instance name from get_active_assembly_info, origin_mm is [x,y,z] in mm, rotation_rows is optional 9-element row-major 3x3 entries with None defaulting to current rotation.

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 tool sets a component's pose (position and optional rotation) via IComponent2.Transform2, followed by a rebuild. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the mirror-flip failure mode elimination when posing before mating, which is unique to this tool.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool to stage a component at its exact pose before creating mates, explaining that angle and distance mates have two solutions and posing first eliminates the mirror-flip failure. It also references the alternative tool 'place_and_mate' for the combined operation.

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