lib_create_symbol

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavior around multi-part pin ownership (owner_part_id 0 vs 1..part_count), which is genuinely useful. It omits what happens on duplicate names, whether an existing symbol is overwritten, and any required library/permission preconditions.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a structured Args block. The part_count explanation is lengthy but earns its place because it encodes non-obvious sub-part semantics; nothing else is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return line is only a courtesy. For a library-mutating create tool with no annotations, the definition should still state preconditions and duplicate/overwrite behavior, which it does not.

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, and it does: all four parameters are explained, including examples for designator_prefix and a detailed semantics of part_count that the bare integer schema conveys nothing about. The remaining three params get only terse glosses, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 and resource with scope: 'Create a new schematic symbol in the active library'. It is clearly distinct from footprint-creation siblings, but it does not distinguish itself from the closer siblings lib_create_ic_symbol and lib_create_passive_symbol, which an agent must choose between.

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 is implied (you are building a symbol before adding pins), and the part_count note does sequence the workflow toward lib_add_pins. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lib_create_ic_symbol / lib_create_passive_symbol, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a library must be active) are given.

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