Edit a standalone symbol

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

Annotations already cover the destructive/non-idempotent/write profile, but the description adds meaningful traits beyond them: unrelated/default records are preserved, and changes do not propagate to embedded GDF copies. The offset/hash and compiler-verification caveats add further operational context. It stops short of describing return values or failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The telegraphic style ("Rename/resize standalone SYM") is information-efficient, though slightly compressed for a tool with 18 operations.

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 18-operation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mutability, non-propagation to GDF copies, record-preservation behavior, and the inspect/verify workflow. There is no output schema so return values need not be explained, but a few more details on ordering or failure recovery would complete it.

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 parameters thoroughly, including the 18-value operation enum and offset/grid semantics. The description only echoes the general theme (rename/resize, original-attribute offsets) without adding parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

States specific verbs (rename/resize/edit/create/delete) against a specific resource (standalone SYM internal lines/circles/arcs/text and interface pins). It also differentiates from siblings like gdf_symbol_refresh/gdf_edit by noting that changes do not update embedded GDF symbol copies.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: inspect fresh offsets/hash before and verify the consuming circuit with the original compiler after, and warns that edits use original attributes. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for GDF-embedded symbols, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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