move_footprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that rotation is optional; it says nothing about mutation side effects, whether moves can fail, permission/lock prerequisites (e.g. set_footprint_locked), or what happens to locked footprints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 purpose sentence before the Args block, and each line earns its place with no filler. Minor redundancy between the purpose line and the angle_deg arg text, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are covered. But as an unannotated mutation tool it omits failure modes, lock/permission prerequisites, and coordinate-frame assumptions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all four parameters, giving meaning ('Reference designator, e.g. R1', target X/Y in millimetres, optional absolute rotation in degrees). This adds value the bare schema titles do not.

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 a footprint') plus scope ('to an absolute position'), which implicitly contrasts with the relative-placement siblings like place_relative. However it never names those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 'absolute position' implies this is distinct from relative-placement tools such as place_relative, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative named. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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