move_component

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it sets position/rotation, triggers a rebuild, and returns whether the movement held. It explains the significance of 'moved=False' (component fixed or mate-driven).

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a detailed explanation of use case, and a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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, the description fully explains return values (requested vs post-rebuild pose, plus 'moved' flag). It also covers the rebuild side effect and constraints (fixed/mate-driven components). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all parameters: 'component_name' from get_active_assembly_info, 'origin_mm' as [x,y,z] in mm, and 'rotation_rows' as optional 9-element row-major rotation matrix. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's basic types.

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's purpose: 'set a component's pose (drag-equivalent)' by positioning and optionally rotating a component. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'place_and_mate' by explaining its specific use case.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool for staging a component at exact pose before creating mates, and warning about the alternative 'place_and_mate' for combined posing and mating, provides clear usage context. Also informs about interpretation of the 'moved' return value.

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