Create typed data symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive behavior: it replaces prior items and deletes the underlying byte items before recreating them. It also explains the optional rename step and type format. It omits any permission/auth requirements, minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and the sibling comparison. Every sentence adds information (destruction semantics, alternative, type format), though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the destructive write behavior, the type format, and the sibling relationship. Missing only invocation prerequisites, which are minor given the rich structural data.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for the `type` field: a full C declaration with a placeholder name, illustrated with a concrete example and the IDA SetType mechanism. Other fields (addr, name, delete_existing) are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a typed data symbol at an address') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling set_type by noting that set_type leaves byte items unchanged while this deletes then recreates them. An agent can tell it apart from related type tools without opening the 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 names the alternative (set_type) and the condition that selects this tool ('harden a symbol boundary that the decompiler is currently expressing through a neighboring global plus offset'). This is a clear when-to-use with sibling differentiation.

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