Export Symbol To Asy

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and 'write a .asy' is consistent with that. The description adds output-shape context (two-pin, named for the component), but says nothing about overwriting an existing file, required permissions, or what is returned, which matters for a non-idempotent file write.

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; the verb and artifact come first. It is efficient, though the extreme terse-ness borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

With no output schema, low parameter coverage, and a file-writing side effect, the description does not carry enough to call the tool confidently. It omits path/format expectations, overwrite behavior, and any success/failure signal an agent would need.

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%, so three of four parameters (schematic_path, reference, output_path) are undocumented anywhere. The description only obliquely implies reference/output naming ('named for a placed component') and gives no hint about paths, formats, or the workspace_root override.

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 (write) and artifact (.asy), and adds that the output is two-pin and named after a placed component. However, it never explains what a 'placed component' is in this workflow or distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like create_asy_symbol or add_component_from_asy, leaving the agent to infer the niche.

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, and no named alternative despite several closely related asy/symbol tools in the sibling list. The agent must guess whether this is the right export path versus create_asy_symbol or read_component_symbol.

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