cst_move_solid_to_component_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutating tool. It does not say whether the solid is removed from its original component, whether the move is reversible, what happens if the target component is invalid, or what the caller needs (open project, active design environment). Only the bare mutation is implied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is the same brevity that leaves the semantic gaps elsewhere.

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, but for a two-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition omits essentially all operational context (preconditions, side effects, error cases). It is not adequate to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage — the schema gives only the titles 'Solid' and 'Component' with no format. The description adds nothing about whether these are names, IDs, or hierarchical paths, which is exactly the gap the description should fill.

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 and resource ('Move a solid') plus the destination ('into another component'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent sibling tools like cst_new_component_tool or cst_rename_solid_tool, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (must the component already exist? must the solid be selected?), and names no alternative tool. An agent must infer everything about routing from the name alone.

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