swebsy_add_symbol_instance

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

Without any annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the instance 'stays in sync with the symbol main and every other instance', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also implies a precondition (current page requires selection). However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or any other behaviors beyond the sync. Given the absence of annotations, the description reveals the core behavior but leaves room for ambiguity about edge cases.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and sync behavior, then immediately gives the key prerequisite. Every phrase adds value—'linked', 'stays in sync', 'reuse'—without redundancy. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and clear purpose, the description covers the essential context: why to use it (reuse), how it behaves (linked/sync), and a prerequisite (select page). It does not mention problems like invalid symbol IDs or performance implications, but those are typical and not necessary. It could be a 5, but the lack of any mention of error behavior or what happens if the page already contains such an instance makes it slightly incomplete.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage), including the 'targetPath' explanation about needing it for before/after placement. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter semantics—only that 'select_page first' is a prerequisite and 'list_symbols' is the source for symbolId. Since the schema already carries the parameter details, the description does not need to compensate, and the added context is helpful but not crucial.

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 a specific action ('Add a linked INSTANCE of an existing symbol') and the target ('to the CURRENT page'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_section or insert_block by emphasizing the linked/sync nature and pointing to list_symbols for the source. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from alternatives without needing to open other tools.

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 clear usage context: it tells the agent to select the target page with select_page first, and directs to list_symbols to find the symbolId. It also frames the tool as the way to reuse shared components across pages. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like add_section, but the purpose itself is specific enough that an agent can infer the right situation. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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