design_place_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool creates a symbols:symbol layer with embedded SVG path data, but it does not state whether the symbol library is modified, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the return value is.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action before adding the layer-creation detail. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only minimally complete. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description does not explain return behavior, interaction with existing layers, or how this differs from related symbol tools.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general idea of embedded SVG path data and does not clarify required fields like symbolId, viewBox, or paths beyond what the schema already says.

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: placing a symbol as a design layer on the canvas, and clarifies that it creates a symbols:symbol layer with embedded SVG path data. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as design_add_symbol, design_create_symbol, or design_fetch_symbol.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus design_add_symbol, design_create_symbol, design_fetch_symbol, or other symbol-related tools. It also omits prerequisites, such as whether a symbol must already exist or be fetched first.

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