design_create_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses validation, a 10KB size limit, and caching in the sketch file, but it omits critical mutation details such as what happens on invalid syntax, whether an existing symbol ID is overwritten, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by key constraints and caching behavior.

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 rich 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adds important constraints (validation, 10KB limit) and integration context (drawSymbol). It is mostly complete, though it could state what the tool returns and how it differs from adding an existing symbol.

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%, covering all eight parameters, so the schema already explains parameter meaning. The description adds only high-level context ('SVG path data') and does not augment individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a custom AI-generated symbol with SVG path data.' It clearly differentiates creating a new symbol from using existing symbols, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool design_add_symbol or contrast creating vs. adding.

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 usage when an agent needs a custom symbol with SVG path data, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like design_add_symbol or design_fetch_symbol. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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