sch_auto_place_symbols

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden and adds valuable behavioral details: it reads existing symbols first, avoids overlapping new symbols, and treats non-listed fixed symbols as immovable obstacles. It stops short of disclosing side effects like whether existing symbol positions are overwritten, but for a placement tool the mutation is implied.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose and key safety behavior, and with an output schema present, return-value details are not necessary. However, it leaves a significant gap regarding the default placement scope (what happens when symbol_list is null) and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sch_auto_place_functional tool in the sibling list.

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 explain parameters. It does add meaning: 'strategy' is clarified as choosing from cluster/linear/star layouts, and 'symbol_list' is implied to be the list of references to place, with non-members as obstacles. However, it fails to explain the default behavior when symbol_list is null, leaving ambiguity about whether it uses the current selection.

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 ('Auto-place') and the resource ('selected references'), and specifies distinct layout methods ('deterministic cluster, linear, or star layouts'). It also differentiates from legacy behavior, giving a precise scope.

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 use cases through its behavior description (e.g., avoiding overlapping placements, treating fixed symbols as obstacles) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like sch_auto_place_functional, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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