catia_move_component

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description's main contribution is the non-obvious relative-vs-absolute placement semantics. It does not cover side effects such as interactions with assembly constraints, but it is consistent with the annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional absolute-mode behavior is stated compactly without repeating schema content.

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 schema and description together cover units, defaults, the required instance_name, and the critical relative/absolute behavior. There is no output schema and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is largely complete, though it does not mention possible effects on existing assembly constraints.

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 schema documents all eight parameters with units and defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that x/y/z and rx/ry/rz are relative to the component's current pose unless absolute=true, which is not fully captured by the individual schema property descriptions.

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 names the action and resource: 'Move a component in the assembly.' It is unambiguous and matches the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as catia_component_position or catia_add_component, so it stops short of a top score.

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 relative-vs-absolute sentence gives useful operational guidance for how the move is applied, and the overall wording implies this tool is for repositioning existing components. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over catia_component_position, catia_assembly_constraint, or catia_add_component, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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