sym_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only clarifies that get reads and update writes. It does not describe side effects, resource costs, idempotency, or behavioral differences of estimate, render, check_render, and export.

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 compact and front-loads the operation list in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying sentence about draft structure. The dense list of ops could be more readable, but every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is substantially incomplete. It does not clarify required parameters, output formats, how op selection changes invocation, or the purpose of taskId and render/export parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains op semantics partially and mentions drafts are CapCut-style documents. Parameters such as draftId, taskId, exportParams, and renderParams are left entirely unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as the server-side draft of the Symphony editor and enumerates its operations, including readable verbs for get and update. It conveys the general purpose of structurally editing and rendering CapCut-style drafts, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like sym_transform or sym_generate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sym_generate, sym_transform, or sym_render-related siblings. The description implies usage through the op list but never states conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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