Create or clone a custom symbol

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

Annotations declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Never overwrite' (a safety guarantee not in the annotations), that operations optionally add graphics/text/pins, and that connectivity must be proven separately via compiler/export. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation set, though it does not describe preview/confirm semantics or rate/authorization details.

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 with the core create/clone action front-loaded, followed by constraints and workflow. Nothing is padded, though the HDL/compiler sentence is a bit tangential to the tool call itself.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the create-vs-clone distinction, the no-overwrite guarantee, and the operations workflow. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries field detail, so the remaining gaps (preview/confirm behavior, return shape) are minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning: it explains that 'operations' inject internal graphics/text/pins and that 'template' clones a hashed prototype under a new name. This helps interpret the operations/template/name parameters beyond the terse per-field schema text.

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+resource ('Create a new original-format SYM') and distinguishes two modes (original create vs clone of a hashed workspace/installed-library prototype). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names a sibling like sym_edit or gdf_create to route the agent, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Implies the usage context ('Never overwrite', operations add graphics/text/pins, HDL source supplied separately then compiler/export to prove connectivity) but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or exclusions. The workflow hints are helpful but the agent must still infer when to pick this over sym_edit or gdf_create.

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