design_remove_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: the tool warns when the algorithm references the symbol ID, implying a guarded rather than silent destructive path. However, it never says whether removal is reversible, whether it deletes a placed instance or the symbol definition itself, or what error behavior to expect if the ID is unknown.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and one guard but omits reversibility, scope of effect (instance vs. library definition), and failure behavior. It is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Symbol ID to remove". The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a symbol") plus scope ("from a sketch"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the add/place/create symbol siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus design_add_symbol, design_create_symbol, or design_remove_layer, nor any prerequisite stated (e.g., the symbol must already be placed). The only contextual sentence concerns a warning, not usage selection.

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