move_testpoints

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

Discloses transactional behavior, millimeter units independent of document settings, the non-destructive nature of dry_run, and the prerequisite for actually moving (preview inspection + expected_sha256). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behaviors well, though it does not mention effects on locking or connectivity.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Uses code formatting for parameters. The external schema reference is slightly redundant but does not detract. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is not fully sufficient. It explains the dry_run safety flow and units but omits parameter interactions and selector semantics. The existence of an output schema helps, but parameter semantics remain under-specified for safe invocation without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for distance-related parameters (dx, dy, absolute_x, absolute_y) via the global mm note, and for dry_run and expected_sha256 via the workflow. However, other parameters (path, txid, selector, grid_snap, allow_locked) remain undefined beyond their titles, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('explicit standalone-pad testpoints'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_testpoints/remove_testpoints and move_components. The scope is 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?

Provides an explicit workflow: dry_run=true previews without writing, and dry_run=false should only be set after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. Also clarifies that distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units. Does not explicitly name alternatives but gives clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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