chart_manage_indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. It does not disclose that removal requires an entity_id from chart_get_state or that indicator names must be full names, leaving critical behavioral details to the schema descriptions.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks context about prerequisites and the source of entity_id. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about expected behavior or return values would improve completeness, but the schema partially compensates.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema effectively explains the parameters including enums, required fields, and naming constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that.

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 action (add or remove) and the resource (indicator/study on the chart). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like indicator_add_from_search or indicator_toggle_visibility.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as indicator_add_from_search or indicator_set_inputs. The schema hints at usage (e.g., entity_id for remove, indicator for add), but the description itself provides no context or exclusions.

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