lib_symbol_copy

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the return value (the new symbol UUID) and a specific failure condition (name collision in the target library). It does not cover auth/permission requirements, but the failure-mode and return disclosure are useful additions.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return value and failure condition follow logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return value (new symbol UUID) and the collision failure path. Combined with the fully-covered input schema, an agent has what it needs, though permission/prerequisite context is absent.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema (including the instance_id conditional behavior and newSymbolName default). The description only echoes the collision semantics already stated in the newSymbolName schema description, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (library symbol) plus directionality (one library to another) with a concrete example (system → personal). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lib_device_copy, which operates on devices rather than symbols.

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 implies the scenario (moving/copying a symbol between libraries, e.g. system → personal) but never states when to use this instead of alternatives such as lib_device_copy or lib_symbol_update_document_source. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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