Fritzing Move Part

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the dual read/move mode, but says nothing about whether the change persists to the file (the 'file' param implies mutation), what happens on invalid ref, or whether coordinates are absolute relative to the sketch origin.

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?

One sentence plus a parenthetical, with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the undefined 'ref'/'file' semantics and unclear persistence behavior leave gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description only explains x and y (omit both to read); it says nothing about 'ref' or 'file' semantics, units, or coordinate origin. Two of four parameters remain entirely undocumented for an agent.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a placed instance'), and the parenthetical clarifies the read-mode behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling fritzing_place_part, so an agent must infer the new-vs-existing distinction.

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 parenthetical 'omit x/y to read its current position' gives a clear conditional for one mode, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus fritzing_place_part or fritzing_set_properties, both plausible siblings for changing a part's state.

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