lib_symbol_open_in_editor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent), and the description adds behavior beyond them: it creates an editor tab as a side effect, returns a tabId, discloses the failure mode for system-library symbols (error instead of a tabId), and links the return value to a downstream tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with purpose and return value before the constraint and fallback. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so (tabId and its use with document_get_source). Combined with the full schema coverage and annotation safety hints, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly or route to lib_symbol_copy when the call would fail.

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% and all four parameters are documented in the schema (including instance_id selection and splitScreenId defaults), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as symbolUuid vs libraryUuid syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Open a library symbol in the EasyEDA editor as a tab') and immediately distinguishes the outcome (returns a new tabId). An agent can tell it apart from siblings like lib_symbol_copy and lib_footprint_open_in_editor without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that only personal, team, or project library symbols can be opened, that system-library symbols cause an error, and names the alternative (lib_symbol_copy into your own library first). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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