Set Component Symbol Text

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say what the attribute is, whether the value is validated, what format .asy expects, or what happens to an existing attribute value. A one-line description cannot carry a mutation tool with no other behavioral context.

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?

It is a single sentence fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it leaves the core noun ('.asy attribute') and all parameters unexplained, so brevity here costs clarity.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the attribute concept and the required parameters. None of that is present, so an agent lacks the information needed to call 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 25% — just workspace_root is documented. The description mentions 'attribute' but does not explain the semantics of asy_path, attribute, or value (formats, accepted keys, whether value overwrites). With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 ('Set') and a resource ('.asy attribute'), but '.asy attribute' is cryptic and the description does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as set_component_symbol_pin or set_component_value. An agent can infer it writes a single symbol-file attribute but cannot tell what kind of attribute or why it differs from the pin/value setters.

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 named alternative. The agent gets no signal about when this is the right tool versus set_component_value, set_component_parameters, or set_component_symbol_pin.

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