autocad_move_entity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the basic transform concept — it doesn't say the entity's handle must come from a create/query tool (that's in the schema), nor what happens if the handle doesn't exist or the layer is locked. Baseline 3 since annotations carry the load and the description adds the 'in place' modifier.

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?

Front-loads the operation well but then restates the full schema in an Args block and returns section. Since an output schema exists, the Returns section is redundant. The Args block duplicates the input schema verbatim, which is noise. Single-sentence core is good, packaging is wasteful.

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 mutation tool with destructive=true and an output schema present, an agent has enough to invoke it. But given no annotations explain reversibility or preconditions, the description should say whether move is undoable, whether it requires the entity's layer to be unlocked, or what errors occur on bad handles. It doesn't.

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?

Parameter count is 1 (the nested params object). Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level, but the nested fields carry descriptions. The description lists handle/dx/dy/dz with types, matching the schema exactly. It adds nothing beyond what the nested schema properties already state — no units clarification beyond 'drawing units', no handle sourcing validation.

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+resource ('Move an entity') and specifies the operation is 'in place by (dx, dy, dz)'. Among siblings like copy/rotate/scale/mirror, the name and description make clear this is translation by vector. Lacks explicit sibling differentiation but is unambiguous on its own.

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 guidance on when to use this versus rotate/scale/mirror/copy. The agent must infer from the tool name and its own model of CAD operations. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives named.

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