Create Symbol

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context about file creation ('created if missing') and pin/body geometry. However, it does not reveal that overwrite=true can replace an existing symbol, and no details about side effects on existing files are given. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

The description is organized into clear sections: overview, follow-up, and coordinate tips. Every sentence is useful, and bullet points make the coordinate rules easily scannable. It is longer than typical descriptions but earns its length with actionable details. Slight redundancy in mentioning pin length (also in schema), but not enough to hurt.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters and nested object structures, the description provides substantial context: what the symbol body represents, how pins connect, and coordinate conventions. It also points to a required next step (register_symbol_library). With an output schema present, return values need not be described. Missing explicit mention of overwrite side effects, but schema covers the overwrite parameter.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds this by providing concrete formulas for pin placement (e.g., left pins: at.x = body_left - length, angle=0) and standard grid/length values, which directly explains how to set at.x, at.y, angle, and length. This adds significant practical meaning beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Create a new schematic symbol in a .kicad_sym library file'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_project, create_schematic, and create_footprint by focusing on symbol creation. Also mentions the expected follow-up (register_symbol_library), reinforcing its unique role.

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?

Provides clear step-by-step usage context, including the requirement to call register_symbol_library after creation. Offers practical coordinate tips for placing pins and drawing the body. Does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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