pcb_move_silkscreen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool name in Chinese and does not disclose coordinate semantics (absolute vs. relative), whether the move affects only the specified primitive, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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 very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified and essentially duplicates the tool name. It lacks the structure needed to convey any context beyond the basic action and object.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient. It omits whether x/y are new absolute positions or deltas, what rotation means in this context, and any error or edge-case behavior, leaving an agent without enough information for confident invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents primitiveId, x, y, and rotation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter information.

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 '移动丝印文字' ('move silkscreen text') states a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying this as the tool that relocates silkscreen text rather than components or tracks. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pcb_move_component or pcb_batch_move, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_batch_move or pcb_auto_silkscreen. The phrase only implies a generic use case and provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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