pine_set_source

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the overwrite protection and the confirm_overwrite condition, which is valuable. However, it does not mention return values, failure modes, or side effects beyond overwriting, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical overwrite caveat follows immediately. Efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the safety guard. It lacks explicit return/error details, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters, including the condition for confirm_overwrite. The description essentially repeats the overwrite condition without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds little extra.

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 states a specific action ('Set Pine Script source code') on a clear resource ('the editor'), and the overwrite-refusal detail further specifies its scope. Among sibling tools like pine_get_source, pine_compile, and pine_new, this is unambiguous.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pine_new, pine_open). It only implies that reading with pine_get_source is needed before confirming overwrite, but does not provide explicit routing or exclusion guidance.

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