Update embedded schematic symbols from SYM

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-read-only/not-idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: shared definitions are split so unselected instances retain original bytes, retained fields (instances/NET_ID/parameters/placement/rotation), and that pin/interface and geometric contact changes are reported and require explicit allow flags. It stops short of stating auth/rate/undo specifics.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (mutation semantics, preservation guarantee, reporting/allow flags, verification path), with the primary action front-loaded. No filler, though the first sentence is slightly packed.

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 15-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the mutation, its preservation guarantees, the change-reporting/allow-flag contract and the verification expectation. Complete enough for correct invocation without explaining return values.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters, and baseline is 3. The description adds only light cross-parameter meaning (hashing of templates implies the two SHA-256 checks; 'explicit allow flags' ties to allowDisconnected/allowInterfaceChanges) rather than new per-parameter semantics.

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 verb/action (preview or apply a hashed SYM) against a specific resource (explicitly selected GDF instances/embedded symbols). The 'refresh embedded symbols from SYM' intent is unambiguous, but it never names or contrasts a sibling such as sym_edit or gdf_symbol_library, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage context is implied ('explicitly selected GDF instances', preview default vs apply) and it adds a useful post-condition workflow ('Compile/export/simulate to prove actual connectivity'). However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance compared with the many nearby edit tools.

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