move_board_texts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: distances are in millimeters regardless of the document's Units, and the write operation is gated by dry_run and expected_sha256. This is significant transparency for a mutation tool. It does not describe potential side effects on connectivity or locking, but the dry-run mechanism is substantial.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, units, and dry-run workflow. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence contributes essential knowledge.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical invocation details: how to select target text (selector vs txid), the meaning of relative vs absolute coordinates, and the role of allow_locked. For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, an agent cannot confidently use it correctly based on this description alone.

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 units (affecting dx/dy, absolute_x/y) and the dry_run/expected_sha256 relationship. It leaves selector, txid, path, allow_locked, and absolute vs relative coordinate semantics unexplained. With 10 parameters, this fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb and resource: 'Move free board text or component markings in board coordinates.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like rotate_board_texts and move_components by specifying the object and coordinate context. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear safety workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when to use this tool over other movement tools, such as move_components. The usage context is implied but not contrasted.

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