move_components

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that all moves are grouped into one undo step. However, it does not describe side effects or what happens to existing positions, though the annotation lowers the burden.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then gives the data shape and a concrete example in three concise sentences. There is no filler or repetition of schema-provided 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?

For a tool with a complex nested moves parameter, the description provides enough structure and an example to invoke it correctly, and an output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. It is slightly incomplete because path is unexplained and the semantics of flip/locked/rotate_by rely on inference.

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?

The description substantially compensates for the schema's empty items definition by specifying exactly what keys are allowed and providing a concrete example. However, the path parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and the units or reference frame for x/y/dx/dy/rotation are left implicit.

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 specific action ('Move'), a clear resource ('several footprints'), and a defining characteristic ('one undo step'). The plural 'several' differentiates it from the sibling move_component, so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'several footprints as one undo step' clearly signals batch usage, implying this is the right tool when multiple footprints need coordinated moves. It does not explicitly name move_component as the single-item alternative or state exclusions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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