ps_symbol_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an existing symbol and creates a new version, but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, how the hash is used, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavior ('Creates a new version with updated hash'). It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), doesn't explain the return value or versioning implications, and provides minimal guidance for use. For a tool that modifies data and has siblings with overlapping functions, more detail is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (symbolId, changes, change_description, changed_by). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the structure of 'changes' (e.g., what fields like 'who' or 'commanders_intent' represent) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update an existing symbol') and the resource ('symbol'), with the specific detail that it 'Creates a new version with updated hash.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ps_symbol_create (create new) or ps_symbol_delete (remove). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ps_symbol_format or ps_symbol_verify, which may also modify symbols in some way.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing symbol), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new symbols), or compare to siblings like ps_symbol_create (for new symbols) or ps_symbol_format (for formatting). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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