pine_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only restates the action 'Save' without explaining side effects (e.g., overwrite, file location, success indication). The Ctrl+S shortcut is a minor addition but does not address what happens upon save.

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-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place, and no extraneous details are present.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the action. It could mention whether saving triggers a download or writes to a specific location, but in the TradingView context, 'Save the current Pine Script' is an adequate and complete description for an editor save operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed; baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Save' with an explicit resource 'current Pine Script', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pine_get_source and pine_set_source, as none of them perform a save operation.

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 clearly implies usage when you want to persist the current Pine Script, matching the tool's name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools focus on getting/setting/compiling rather than saving.

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