lib_create_custom_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and constraints. It only mentions the target directory and 'simple', omitting whether files are overwritten, how pins are interpreted, or any project/library side effects.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loads the verb and object. However, it is so terse that it omits behavioral and parameter detail, making it less useful than a slightly longer description would be.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only two parameters, the description provides insufficient context for a creation tool with nested object pins. It lacks usage prerequisites, pin structure, and behavior expectations, leaving important 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no meaning for 'name' or 'pins' beyond their raw names. The 'pins' array of objects is completely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer required structure or formatting.

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 action ('Create'), the object ('custom symbol'), and the location ('active project directory'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is somewhat differentiated by 'simple' but does not explicitly contrast with symbol-generation siblings like lib_generate_symbol_from_pintable.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative-based guidance is provided. The phrase 'in the active project directory' gives context but no exclusions or comparisons to similar library tools such as lib_generate_symbol_from_pintable.

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