move_part

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and reversibility profile is covered. The description adds the useful origin-anchoring detail but says nothing about overwriting existing placement, undo semantics, or coordinate frame (board vs. design).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the key placement semantic is stated immediately.

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 a simple 3-param mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly adequate, but the completely undocumented 'ref' parameter leaves a real gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no param descriptions, so the description's mention of (x, y) in mm usefully clarifies the units for x_mm/y_mm. However, the 'ref' parameter — which part reference is expected — is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (board part) and adds the precise semantic that the part's origin is placed at (x, y) in mm. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like rotate_part or place_clusters.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus rotate_part, place_clusters, or suggest_placement_moves, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open design). The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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