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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the mutation-but-safe profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing blast radius: only the targeted instance becomes editable while 'the symbol and its other instances stay linked.' It does not mention reversibility (undo) or permission needs, but those are secondary here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key behavioral guarantee, then the usage scenario. No filler and nothing that repeats the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, and when to reach for it. It could be fuller by noting reversibility or that the instance loses its symbol overrides, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as a path from read_page. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance for targetPath, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 ('turn ONE symbol instance on the current page back into a plain component') and scopes it precisely to a single instance. The inverse relationship to siblings like swebsy_promote_to_symbol and swebsy_add_symbol_instance is clear from the wording alone.

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 a concrete use case ('when one page needs a variant of the shared navbar/footer'), which tells the agent the scenario this tool fits. It stops short of naming alternatives or when NOT to use it (e.g. versus delete_symbol), leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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