symbol_define

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '정의합니다' (defines) implies a creation/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what happens to the original object (is it replaced? modified? copied?), whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could benefit from being more specific. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after symbol definition, whether the symbol becomes available for use elsewhere, what format the symbol takes, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of symbol systems in graphics tools, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (objectId, symbolId, viewBox). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '객체를 재사용 가능한 심볼로 정의합니다' (Defines an object as a reusable symbol) states a clear verb ('정의합니다' - defines) and resource ('객체' - object), but it's vague about what a 'symbol' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'symbol_use' or other object manipulation tools. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the symbol system.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'symbol_use' (presumably for using symbols) and many object manipulation tools, there's no indication of when symbol definition is appropriate versus other operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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