eda_lib_symbol_modify

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does say that setting a property to null clears it and that the return value indicates success, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not state whether omitted optional parameters leave existing values unchanged, what happens on failure, or whether any permissions or active-editor context are required.

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 compact and front-loaded: one signature line conveys the core API, followed by three short lines for the action, the property-clearing remark, and the return type. Every line carries necessary information with no filler.

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 lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and the complexity of six parameters, the description provides a solid amount of information: parameter names, types, order, and one behavioral rule. Still, it omits important context for safe use, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved during modification and what valid values for classification or otherProperty look like.

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's signature adds significant meaning beyond the generic args-array schema: it lists all six parameters in official order, with types, optionality markers, and the null-clearing semantic. It also clarifies that symbolUuid and libraryUuid are required, compensating for the schema's opaque positional-array representation.

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 clearly states the action "修改符号" (modify symbol) and provides the full method signature, naming the resource and all editable fields. It is obvious that this tool modifies a library symbol, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling symbol tools like eda_lib_symbol_update_document_source or eda_lib_symbol_open_in_editor.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an existing symbol UUID or an open library. The only usage-related remark concerns clearing properties with null, not when to select this tool over a sibling.

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