pcb_relocate_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does disclose one key behavior — automatic disconnection of traces — but '安全搬迁' is vague about whether existing tracks are deleted, whether nets require repair, or whether the move is reversible. Additional risk/impact context is missing.

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 concise sentence with no filler, efficiently packaging both the purpose and a key behavioral side effect. It is well front-loaded for quick agent scanning, though slightly under-specified in other areas.

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 moderate-complexity PCB manipulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential operation and a key side effect. However, it does not address important operational context such as prerequisites, failure scenarios, whether existing routes are actually deleted, or the exact meaning of 'safe' in this 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 parameters such as x, y, rotation, and designator are each minimally described. The tool description adds no further meaning to these parameters and leaves ambiguity such as rotation units, but the schema handles the basics, making the baseline 3 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 identifies the specific operation: safely relocating a component with automatic trace disconnection. The phrase '自动断开走线' distinguishes it from the sibling candidate pcb_move_component, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.

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 implies usage for relocating a component while disconnecting existing routing, but it does not explicitly clarify when to choose this tool over pcb_move_component, pcb_auto_place_components, or pcb_fanout_component. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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