move_via

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: transactional execution, millimetre units regardless of document units, dry_run preview behavior, and the requirement to pass expected_sha256 before committing. It could further detail side effects or failure modes, but the provided information is substantial and non-tautological.

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 focused sentences with front-loaded action, a unit clarification, and a safety workflow. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of schema content. This is an appropriately concise yet informative description.

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?

The description provides a strong operational workflow and key unit context, but given the complexity of the input schema (9 parameters, nested selector, coordinate options), it is not fully complete. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but several input parameters remain ambiguous without further documentation.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that dx/dy/absolute coordinates are in millimetres and explains the dry_run and expected_sha256 relationship. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained (selector, path, txid, absolute_x/absolute_y relative vs absolute semantics), which is a notable gap for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Move selected trace-point vias transactionally.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like move_components by naming the target object type (trace-point vias) and adds operational context (transactional, distances in millimetres). This leaves no doubt about the tool's function.

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 explicit usage guidance: use dry_run=true to preview without writing, and only set dry_run=false after inspecting the preview and supplying expected_sha256. It clearly communicates the intended workflow, though it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use move_components instead).

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