Export Symbol

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not clarify whether the source library is modified (e.g., the symbol removed) or whether the output file is overwritten. 'Extract' is ambiguous and could imply moving vs copying. This is a significant gap given the destructive hint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essence without redundant words or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema plus output schema provide good structural coverage. However, the missing side-effect disclosure (especially around the destructive hint) leaves the overall context incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (source path, symbol name, output path). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') and clearly states the resource (a single symbol from a .kicad_sym library) and the result (a standalone .kicad_sym file). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_symbols_in_library or import_symbol by focusing on the export operation.

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 implies the use case (when you need to extract one symbol to its own file) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools might be better suited. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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