Register Symbol Library

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it writes. The description adds that it modifies the sym-lib-table, which is useful, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing entries or whether the change persists across sessions. This is adequate but not rich, matching a 3.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage trigger. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition, making it exceptionally concise.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description adequately covers the primary use case and workflow ('after create_symbol'), while the schema fills in parameter details. It could mention scope semantics or projectPath requirements, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to act appropriately.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema provides descriptions for 80% of parameters, including libraryPath, libraryName, scope, and projectPath. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's lack of parameter detail does not drop it further.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Register a .kicad_sym library in KiCAD's sym-lib-table so symbols can be used in schematics.' It also provides a concrete trigger scenario ('when KiCAD shows library not found') and distinguishes from the sibling tool register_footprint_library by focusing on .kicad_sym files.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this after create_symbol when KiCAD shows library not found.' This is a clear context, though it omits when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond the implied create_symbol. A score of 4 reflects the strong contextual cue without exclusions.

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