set_component_side

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the tool's write behavior and safety mechanism (dry_run and expected_sha256), which is important context. It also notes the unit system quirk. It does not mention locked component handling or permission requirements, but the transparency is still notable.

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 purpose stated first, followed by crucial unit and safety context. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 covers the core action and safety protocol, but leaves gaps around the selector parameter, allow_locked behavior, and the meaning of 'selected components'. With 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is not fully complete, though the output schema exists.

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 description only adds meaning for dry_run and expected_sha256, while the schema covers 0% of parameters in prose. Selector, allow_locked, txid, path, and side are not explained. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

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 states a specific verb (Move), resource (selected PCB components), and destination (top or bottom side), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_components. It is concise 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 clear context on safe usage: dry_run=true previews without writing, and dry_run=false should only be set after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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