set_component_positionMove or rotate an LTspice schematic component to new coordinates and update connected wires attached to its pins.
Move a component and wires that ended on its pins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| rotation | No | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| schematic_path | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's main added value is disclosing that connected wires move along with the component — a genuine side effect. However, it says nothing about coordinate units/origin, whether rotation is applied, or how moved wires are re-routed.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified for a six-parameter mutation tool.
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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and five undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It should cover coordinate semantics, reference scoping, and rotation behavior to be complete.
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 only 17% (just workspace_root), and the description supplies no meaning for x, y, rotation, reference, or schematic_path. With five undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Move a component') and adds a real detail — that wires terminated on its pins move with it. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other placement-related siblings such as suggest_component_placement or apply_schematic_layout_spec.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the tool for repositioning an existing component rather than placing a new one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.