pcb_move_component

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 fails to disclose whether the move replaces existing positions, whether rotation is preserved when omitted, if the component must be selected first, or if the operation is undoable. For a state-changing operation on a PCB design, this is a significant transparency gap given the description only restates the core operation with '(mil)' units as the only addition, similar to the update_drive example scoring a 2.

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, minimal sentence achieves the communication goal efficiently. While it does closely mirror the function name (pcb_move_component), it adds the target-coordinate concept and unit specification. It earns full credit for brevity, similar to the update_drive example which received a 4 for an efficient single sentence.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The description fails to clarify interaction with the 3 required parameters (designator, x, y), whether the optional rotation overrides or sets rotation, or how this differs from pcb_relocate_component. An agent would have trouble selecting the correct tool among the many movement-related siblings, and a Chinese-only description may add friction for an English-oriented namespaced toolset. There is clear room for the description to add operational context.

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 per rubric the baseline is 3. The description adds the unit context '(mil)', which is already mirrored in the schema's x and y parameter descriptions ('X 坐标 (mil)'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 '移动元件到指定坐标 (mil)' (Move component to specified coordinates) clearly states a specific verb (move) and resource (component) with target coordinates. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like pcb_relocate_component, pcb_batch_move, or pcb_auto_place_components, all of which have overlapping semantics. Clear but no sibling differentiation, hence a 4.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the crowded sibling space (pcb_relocate_component, pcb_batch_move, pcb_select_component, pcb_auto_place_components), the description should clarify its unique role, such as whether it's for moving a single component by exact coordinates while preserving rotation when unspecified. No when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative hints are given.

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