Create Asy Symbol

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and 'Write' is consistent with that. However, the description adds almost nothing beyond the annotations: it does not say where the file lands, whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, or what (if anything) is returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise, but structurally there is nothing wasted.

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 five-parameter write tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the parameters and the overwrite/return behavior. Instead it supplies one terse sentence, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 only 20% (just workspace_root), yet the description documents none of the undocumented parameters (value, prefix, description, output_path). 'Two-pin' hints at pin semantics but no parameter corresponds to pins, so the description neither maps to the schema nor compensates for its gaps.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Write a ... ``.asy`` symbol') and adds a scope qualifier ('two-pin'), so an agent knows this produces a symbol file rather than, say, exporting one. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest siblings (export_symbol_to_asy, add_component_from_asy), which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as export_symbol_to_asy or add_component_from_asy. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right tool for a given symbol-creation task.

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