insert_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that layer and scale come from the library index, that symbols are sized/colored correctly automatically, that the block is loaded from the library DWG if missing, and the reference scale nuance. It does not mention error handling or return format, but the output schema covers return value structure, so this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence gives the main purpose, then explains synonym resolution, then covers layer/scale behavior, and ends with a pointer to list_symbols. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 7 parameters and output schema, the description provides substantial context: usage examples, synonym behavior, scale conventions, and automatic block loading. It doesn't explain coordinate parameters or library selection, but these are moderately inferable from typical CAD semantics. Overall, it is quite complete for an insertion tool.

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. It does add meaning for scale_denominator (1:100 example) and symbol (supports colloquial names via synonym dictionary). However, it leaves x, y, rotation, library, and layer unexplained beyond what the schema types imply. The description also implies layer and scale are auto-derived, which is useful, but it doesn't fully document all parameters.

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 states the tool's core function with a specific verb and resource: 'Place a library symbol'. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning synonym resolution and library index conventions, and it explicitly references list_symbols as a separate tool for viewing available 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: place a symbol by name or colloquial name, with synonyms resolved automatically. It also gives usage tips like passing scale_denominator=100 for a 1:100 plan and mentions list_symbols to see what exists. However, it does not explicitly contrast with insert_block or other block-related siblings, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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