Add Component Symbol Drawing

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add one useful behavioral fact – that this appends rather than replaces, and enumerates the supported shape kinds – but says nothing about which file gets mutated, whether the target must already exist, or what happens on an invalid shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler and the key noun (the shape kinds) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the prerequisite/format details an agent actually needs.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 25% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin: the coords format is opaque, the asy_path contract is unstated, and there is no error or verification guidance. The agent can identify the tool but not confidently invoke it.

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 only 25% (workspace_root alone), so the description must carry the load. It effectively supplies the value vocabulary for 'kind' (LINE/RECTANGLE/CIRCLE/ARC) that the schema leaves as a bare string, but it gives no hint about the 'coords' string encoding or the asy_path target, which is the highest-risk ambiguity here.

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 ('append') and the exact resource being added (LINE, RECTANGLE, CIRCLE, ARC) to a symbol, so an agent knows precisely what the call produces. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the obvious sibling remove_component_symbol_drawing, but the append-vs-remove distinction is inferable from the verb.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that asy_path must point at an existing .asy symbol file), and no mention of alternatives such as set_component_symbol_pin/text or create_asy_symbol. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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