create_symbol_library

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

The description discloses the core behavior (creates an empty library), which is consistent with annotations showing readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or path validation. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: one for purpose, one for the argument. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 simple creation tool with one parameter and an output schema (not required in description), the description covers the essential information. It lacks some edge-case context (e.g., behavior when file exists), but is adequately complete for typical use.

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 by explaining the sole parameter: 'symbol_lib_path: Path for the new .kicad_sym file'. This adds meaning by specifying the expected file extension and purpose. Could be improved by noting required format (e.g., absolute vs relative path).

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 states a specific action: 'Create a valid empty KiCad 9 symbol library.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' and 'add_lib_symbol' by specifying the resource (symbol library) and its state (empty).

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_lib_symbol' or 'create_sym_lib_table'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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