write_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses guarded write semantics, version/lock/undo, base_version requirement, and a client-side JSON escaping pitfall. It doesn't detail permissions or side effects, but adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 focused sentences, each earning its place: purpose/vs-alternative, read-prerequisite, and a critical parameter formatting caveat. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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 complex 11-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides the key mental model, prerequisite, and a critical gotcha. It doesn't explain all edit modes or safety knobs, but those are documented in the schema. Lacks explicit success/failure behavior, though.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the JSON escaping requirement for string parameters and reinforcing that base_version comes from read_symbol, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone.

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 identifies this as a guarded write path for a single symbol with version/lock/undo, and explicitly distinguishes it from edit_batch for symbol-level refactors. The resource (one symbol) and operation type are unambiguous.

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?

It gives a direct comparison to edit_batch, stating this is for symbol-level refactors with index-aware version/lock/undo. It also instructs to read_symbol first for base_version, providing a clear prerequisite. It doesn't enumerate all alternatives but offers key exclusions.

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