annotation.undefine_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive, requires analysis to be held, affects cross-references, or can be undone. The only behavioral clue is 'undefine', implying removal, but no side effects are stated.

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 single-sentence description is concise at four words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, given the lack of annotations and param documentation, some additional context would be justified without being verbose.

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 destructive annotation operation with 2 required parameters and no output schema or annotation hints, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., must a symbol exist?), return value (success indicator?), or relationship to other 'undefine' tools.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for either parameter. The description mentions 'address' implicitly but does not explain what type of address (e.g., virtual address, offset) or the required format for 'session_id'. The description should clarify these gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Undefine') and resource ('user symbol') with location ('at address'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'annotation.define_symbol' or 'annotation.rename_symbol'. While the sibling set includes several annotation tools, the description makes the inverse action clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'annotation.undefine_data_var' or implications of undefining a symbol (e.g., whether it affects references). The context of a binary analysis tool suggests undo/revert might be relevant, but nothing is stated.

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