Import Symbol

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds side effects not fully captured by annotations: the target library is created if missing, and derived symbols require their parent to be imported first. No contradiction with annotations and no misleading statements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two valuable caveats. Every sentence provides necessary context without redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main operation, key side effects (target creation, overwrite), and an important prerequisite (derived symbols need parent). A minor gap is lack of failure behavior details (e.g., when overwrite is false and the symbol already exists), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already having a clear description, so baseline is 3. The description adds a practical layer by explaining the derived-symbol caveat, which directly affects how the symbolName parameter should be used, elevating it slightly above baseline.

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 states a specific action (copy a symbol between .kicad_sym libraries), specifies the resources involved, and includes optional rename/overwrite behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_symbol, create_symbol, or rename_symbol.

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 clear usage context: copying a symbol into another library, with the target library auto-created and a caveat about derived symbols needing their parent imported first. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid the tool or offer alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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