Is it possible to have a generic newcommands for symbols generated by glossaries-extra?

Question

I am defining symbols in my document with glossaries-extra package such as:

\glsxtrnewsymbol[description={Lagrangian}]{lag}{\ensuremath{\mathit{L}}}

However I will be referring to this in my document very often -mostly inside equations-. Normally if I wouldnt have to have a list of symbols I would define

\newcommand{\lag}{\mathit{L}}

and simply write \lag everywhere inside the equation. Now I either need to use \gls{lag} everytime, or for each glossary-symbol entry I should use the \newcommand as above. My question is isnt there a way to tell latex to print \gls{label} whenever I type \label ?

....editing after @schtandard's comments.....

So a MWE is this

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[symbols,nonumberlist]{glossaries-extra}
 
\makeglossaries
 

\glsxtrnewsymbol[description={Field on Minima spce}]{minfield}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}
\glsxtrnewsymbol[description={General Field}]{field}{\ensuremath{\phi}}
\newcommand{\field}{\gls{field}}
\newcommand{\minfield}{\gls{minfield}}

\begin{document}
 
I have a configuration space with fields $\field$ that has a minima. Fields on the minima space are called $\minfield$. 
\begin{equation}
\delta V (\field=\minfield)=0
\end{equation}
 
\clearpage
 
\printglossaries
 
\end{document}

This produces this:

What I want is not to have to define \newcommand s at all, but still be able get the result I get with the exact same code in between \begin{document} and end{document}. Probably what I want is something like,

\newsymbol{#1,#2,#3}
{
 \glsxtrnewsymbol[description={#1}]{#2}{#3},
\newcommand{\#2}{#3}
}

I dont know if something like that already exists or possible, I am new to this level of latex.

...edit 2... I have been using the solution suggested by @egreg happily and i think it helped me quite a lot. I have tried to use the same thing for acronyms, however I come across a small problem. Let me explain. Consider the following code:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[acronyms,nomain,shortcuts]{glossaries-extra}
   
\newcommand{\acryn}[3]{%
\newacronym{#1}{#2}{#3}%
\expandafter\newcommand\csname #1\endcsname{\acs{#1}}}%

\newcommand{\acryntwo}[3]{%
\newacronym{#1}{#2}{#3}%
\expandafter\newcommand\csname #1\endcsname{\acs{#1}~}}%
  
\makeglossaries

\acryn{gr}{GR}{General Relativity}
\acryntwo{grtwo}{GR}{General Relativity}
     
\begin{document}
  
If I use the glossary package command I can say \acs{gr} and it prints nicely. But if I use the command I define when I say \gr unfortunately no gap appears.\\

I could add tilde to the command and this problem would be solved \grtwo as one can see, but now the gap appears where I do not want it to appear: (\grtwo). Note that this does not happen with the built-in command: (\acs{gr}).

\printglossary[type=\acronymtype]
   
     
\end{document}

which produces this:

Answer 1

You can do it quite easily:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[symbols,nonumberlist]{glossaries-extra}

\makeglossaries

\newcommand{\makenewsymbol}[3][]{%
  \glsxtrnewsymbol[#1]{#2}{#3}%
  \expandafter\newcommand\csname #2\endcsname{\gls{#2}}%
}

\makenewsymbol[description={Field on Minima space}]{minfield}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}
\makenewsymbol[description={General Field}]{field}{\ensuremath{\phi}}

\begin{document}

I have a configuration space with fields $\field$ that has a minima. 
Fields on the minima space are called $\minfield$. 
\begin{equation}
\delta V (\field=\minfield)=0
\end{equation}

\printglossaries

\end{document}

From a grammatical point of view, “a minima” looks quite odd.

Answer 2

Ok, I got my answer reading through some deeper discussion of Latex macros on overleaf website:

How TeX macros actually work

Answer to my question is no ofcourse. But I can avoid {}'s, which was actually what I wanted to because they are harder to write on my keyboard (alt+0 and alt+7). I can do the following definition:

\def\sym*#1*{\gls{#1}}

and write \sym*label* . Yeah maybe not too big difference, but at least I learned how TeX works better.