Promote to symbol

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description goes further by disclosing side effects (rebuilding the main, re-linking every copy, registering lost instances) and a failure mode (structure diverged too far → reported as detached). This is substantial behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the primary purpose before the repair/secondary scenario, and every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with the parenthetical naming of sibling tools, but no wasted prose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return values (symbol id for add_symbol_instance, a repaired count, and detached reporting). Combined with the repair semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so targetPath's format is already documented there; the description adds real value by naming the upstream source (read_page) and giving domain examples (navbar, CTA band). The optional 'name' param is left to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 ('Promote an existing component into a reusable SYMBOL') and its scope ('shared, in sync, across pages'). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_symbol_instance, detach_symbol, and delete_symbol.

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 tells the agent what to pass (targetPath from read_page) and covers a non-obvious second use case (repairing broken linkage), pointing at list_symbols → health. It even routes the failure case ('detached') to the alternative delete_section + add_symbol_instance.

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