eda_lib_symbol_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only shows the function signature and return type, but doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the operation can fail, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, but it's just a code signature and a short Chinese phrase. It's not structured for an agent, lacking a clear natural-language summary up front. It's not overly verbose, but it doesn't front-load key information in a way that aids quick comprehension.

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 create operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a symbol is, what the libraryUuid refers to, what classification/symbolType values are valid, or what happens if the library doesn't exist. It also doesn't mention the windowId parameter from the schema, which is required to target a specific EDA window. No output schema is provided, so the return value is only stated as a UUID without context.

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?

The description includes the full parameter list with types: libraryUuid, symbolName, classification, symbolType, description, otherProperty. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines an args array and windowId without detailing the individual parameters. The types help an agent understand what to pass, though it doesn't explain the semantics of each parameter beyond their names.

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 it creates a symbol via lib_Symbol.create, with the Chinese '创建符号' (create symbol) making the purpose explicit. It differentiates from siblings like eda_lib_symbol_modify and eda_lib_symbol_delete by being the create operation. However, it relies on the function name and signature rather than a natural-language explanation of what a symbol is, so it's clear but not fully elaborated.

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. It doesn't mention that it should be used to create a new symbol while modify/delete are for existing ones, nor any prerequisites like an existing library. The only clue is the name and signature, which implies the usage but doesn't state it explicitly.

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