symbol_use

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'places a defined symbol,' implying a creation or insertion action, but doesn't specify if this is a read-only preview, a destructive edit to a document, or requires specific permissions. It lacks details on side effects, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential mutations.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('places'), but could be more structured by including key context upfront. It earns a high score for brevity, though it risks under-specification.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'symbol' is in this context, how it relates to sibling tools like 'symbol_define', what happens on success/failure, or the visual output. For a tool that likely modifies a design canvas, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'symbolId' as the symbol ID, 'x' and 'y' as coordinates). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'symbolId' relates to 'symbol_define' or what units 'width' and 'height' use. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '정의된 심볼을 배치합니다' (Places a defined symbol) states a clear verb ('places') and resource ('symbol'), but it's vague about what 'placing' entails—whether it creates a new instance, inserts into a canvas, or modifies existing elements. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'draw_rect' or 'draw_image', which also create visual elements, leaving ambiguity about its specific role.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling drawing tools (e.g., 'draw_rect', 'draw_image'), it's unclear if 'symbol_use' is for reusable graphics, icons, or templates, or what contexts favor it over direct drawing methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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