chart_set_symbol

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the change is persistent, if it triggers any side effects (e.g., resetting timeframes), or if it requires specific permissions. The agent is left guessing about the impact of this mutation.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity (e.g., noting the chart context). It is front-loaded with the action.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain success/failure indicators, whether the chart is expected to exist, or how this interacts with sibling tools like chart_set_timeframe. The agent lacks sufficient information to use it reliably.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented parameter (symbol includes examples). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the low parameter count and complete schema 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?

The description clearly states 'Change the chart symbol', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like chart_set_timeframe and chart_set_visible_range by focusing on the symbol aspect of chart configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a chart must be open), nor does it exclude usage in certain scenarios. The description is minimal and lacks context for the AI agent.

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