pcb_move_component

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (writable, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the coordinate frame, axis orientation, and mil units, plus the fact that a move can also flip layers. It omits what happens on failure or which unspecified fields remain untouched, so not a 5.

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 core action in the first sentence and keeps each subsequent sentence purposeful (capabilities, units, related tools). The trailing tool-reference sentence is slightly tangential but still useful for correct invocation.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description supplies the missing coordinate/unit semantics and cross-references helper tools. Remaining gaps (return behavior, auto-document-switch consequences) are partially handled by the schema, so it is largely 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the coordinate system semantics (+X rightward, +Y upward, mil = 0.001 inch) that the schema's terse 'New X coordinate' lines don't convey.

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 and/or rotate a component') and enumerates additional capabilities (layer flip, lock, designator). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling pcb_modify_primitive, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete guidance to use pcb_canvas_origin for origin offsets and pcb_convert_coordinates when converting coordinate systems, which is genuinely actionable. It does not state when this tool is preferable to pcb_modify_primitive, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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