ps_symbol_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new symbol but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with 16 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured examples. While the examples are detailed, they are relevant for understanding ID patterns. There is minimal waste, but it could be more concise by integrating the examples more tightly.

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?

Given the complexity with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains ID patterns but does not cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error cases, or return values, which are crucial for a creation tool in this context.

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 high at 94%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the symbol ID patterns for different categories, which clarifies the 'symbolId' parameter beyond the schema's generic description. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'how' or 'commanders_intent.'

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'directive symbol in the registry,' making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like ps_symbol_update, ps_symbol_delete, and ps_symbol_get by focusing on creation rather than modification, deletion, or retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, dependencies, or compare it to sibling tools such as ps_symbol_update or ps_symbol_import, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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