pcb_relocate_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a significant non-obvious side effect: the operation automatically disconnects traces. However, it does not explain what happens to the disconnected tracks, whether the action is reversible, or what 'safe' precisely guarantees.

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 a single compact phrase that states the purpose and key behavior without filler. It is efficiently sized, though it sacrifices important usage context for brevity.

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 four-parameter relocation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and a key side effect. But with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of usage guidance and ambiguous post-move routing behavior leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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%, as x, y, rotation, and designator all have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'safe relocate component' with a key behavioral qualifier 'auto-disconnect traces'. It conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the overlapping sibling tool pcb_move_component.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_move_component or pcb_batch_move. The phrasing implies use when a safe relocation with automatic trace disconnection is desired, but that is left to inference.

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