export_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output format (SVG content or file save), coordinate system options (raw_coords), and default behavior. However, it could explicitly state non-destructive nature or auth requirements. Still, it adds significant 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?

The description is well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. Each parameter is documented concisely without unnecessary repetition. The overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not detail return values further. It covers all 5 parameters, default values, and edge cases like raw_coords. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does thoroughly: name, weight (with list of valid values), size (with default), output_path (with behavior if not provided), raw_coords (with explanation of coordinate system). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool exports an SF Symbol as SVG with vector paths, using a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools are about information retrieval (get_symbol_info, list_symbols, search_symbols), so this tool is distinctly about export.

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?

While there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use', the purpose is clear and distinct from siblings. The description focuses on parameter details, but the context signals strongly imply this tool is for exporting SVGs, not for other symbol queries.

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