move_component

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the operation is one undo step and operates on the in-memory open board. This helps an agent understand recoverability and scope, though it does not elaborate on further side effects.

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 two tightly packed sentences: the first gives the operation and scope, the second maps parameters to their behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of schema information.

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?

The description covers most parameter semantics and the operation is reasonably clear, but it does not explain how the target footprint is identified via ref/path or whether either is required. Since all 9 parameters are optional and there is no explicit selection guidance, an agent may struggle to invoke the tool correctly in all cases. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the meaning of x/y, dx/dy, rotation, rotate_by, and flip. However, it omits ref and path, which appear to identify the footprint to move; this is a meaningful gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Move/rotate/flip') applied to a specific resource ('one footprint in the open board'). The singular 'one footprint' helps differentiate it from the sibling tool move_components, which likely handles multiple footprints.

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 gives clear context: this tool operates on a single footprint in the currently open board. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular scope and 'open board' prerequisite are enough to guide basic tool selection.

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