move_components

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the schema: transactional semantics, unit independence, the dry_run preview mode, and the requirement to pass expected_sha256 when committing. With no annotations, this description carries the full burden and does so well, though it omits some behaviors like handling of locked components.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential unit information and the safety workflow. Every sentence 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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, transactional behavior, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the essential usage workflow and unit semantics, making it adequate for correct invocation. It does not explain all parameters or edge cases, but the critical safety-critical parts are addressed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that distance parameters (dx, dy, absolute_x, absolute_y) are in millimetres, and it explains the purpose of dry_run and expected_sha256. However, it leaves many parameters undocumented (e.g., selector, txid, path, allow_locked, grid_snap), so the compensation is only partial.

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 function: 'Move one or more components transactionally.' The verb 'move' plus the resource 'components' and the transactional qualifier make the purpose specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like rotate_components or set_component_side.

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 gives clear context on usage: all distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, and the dry_run workflow (preview first, then commit with expected_sha256) is explicit. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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