add_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful behavior details such as hole_callout being linked to the model, count=True producing '4X ...' labels, and default placement off the view clear of text, but it does not describe side effects, required document state, failure modes, or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded with the core concept and then uses a compact bullet structure to explain the type-specific fields. It is appropriately sized for a 13-parameter annotation tool, though some density could be reduced by defining 'view' explicitly rather than leaving it implicit.

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, 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete on symbol-type semantics and placement. However, it omits the required view parameter's meaning and lacks general mutation/return behavior, leaving meaningful context gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates strongly by explaining most of the 13 parameters: type-specific ref formats, count, label, datums, symbol, process, diameter, roughness, tolerance, material_condition, and at in sheet millimeters. The notable gap is the required 'view' parameter, which is never directly defined.

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 defines the resource as a drawing symbol annotation placed on a view edge with its leader attached mid-edge, and it enumerates the supported symbol types. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling annotation tools like add_note or add_dimension, but a competent agent can still distinguish it as the tool for geometric/drawing symbols.

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 lists symbol types but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. The only implicit routing hint is 'ref as in add_dimension,' which is not sufficient for choosing this tool over add_dimension, add_note, or edit_annotation.

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