indicator_set_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It merely states the action without mentioning possible side effects (e.g., chart refresh), validation behavior, or what happens if the entity_id is invalid. The lack of any behavioral context beyond the mutation itself is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the verb and object. It includes useful examples without unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description captures the core action but leaves out important operational context such as prerequisite indicator existence, error behavior, or reversibility. While the low complexity doesn't demand extensive detail, the absence of annotations raises the bar for completeness, which this description only partially meets.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, including the JSON format for 'inputs' and the source of 'entity_id'. The description adds modest value by giving examples of input keys, but this is largely redundant with the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 the action ('Change') and the target ('indicator/study input values') with concrete examples ('length, source, period'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like chart_manage_indicator or indicator_toggle_visibility, which handle indicator lifecycle and visibility rather than input parameter modifications.

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 implies usage for adjusting study inputs, and the required entity_id from chart_get_state in the schema suggests a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any constraints like the indicator needing to exist or how to obtain the entity_id beyond the schema hint.

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