chart_set_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Change chart type' without detailing side effects, validation behavior, or persistence of changes, which is insufficient for a tool that modifies chart state.

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 extremely concise, but this borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it is front-loaded and to the point, it omits useful context that could be conveyed in a single additional sentence without sacrificing clarity.

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 low complexity (single parameter with rich schema) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete. It lacks details on expected outcomes or interaction with chart state, though the parameter schema mitigates some ambiguity.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive documentation for the single parameter, including accepted names and numbers with 100% coverage. The description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Change chart type' clearly states the action (change) and the resource (chart type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chart_set_symbol and chart_set_timeframe. It is specific enough to understand the tool's primary function, though it lacks elaboration on what 'chart type' entails.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or references to other tools, leaving the user to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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