tv_repair_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states actions: removes studies with unregistered ids, reconnects the pane, preserves layout, and names removed studies. The dry_run option signals destructiveness and provides a safe preview, making behavior fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by key details (studies removed, recovery via indicator_add_from_search, prerequisite health check, and dry_run option). Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage, destructive effects, safety preview, and recovery. It references related tools and provides actionable details. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: pane is the index from tv_chart_health, and dry_run is for previewing without changes. This clarifies the source of the pane value and the exact effect of dry_run, adding value over raw schema descriptions.

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 verb, resource, and problem: 'Repair a chart pane stuck in a reconnect loop, without rebuilding the layout.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like tv_chart_health by describing the fix action and the condition it addresses. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Explicit usage instructions are given: 'Run tv_chart_health first, or pass dry_run to see the plan.' It also explains when to use the tool (stuck in reconnect loop) and how to safely preview effects with dry_run. It even names a recovery path (add back with indicator_add_from_search), providing clear when and how guidance.

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