chart_manage_indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: 'STATE_MUTATING (Modifies chart study collection)' and the hard limitation that full official TradingView names are required ('Relative Strength Index', not 'RSI'). It does not discuss reversibility, persistence, or failure modes when a name is wrong, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then cleanly partitioned into WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the side-effect warning, the naming constraint, and the entity_id source. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens on an invalid name or whether removal needs confirmation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by stating that entity_id must come from chart_get_state and by reinforcing the exact-name requirement for 'indicator'. The 'inputs' override parameter is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb pair (add/remove) plus the resource (built-in or public indicator/study) and the scope (active chart). Reads clearly as a mutation tool for the study collection, distinguishing it from siblings like indicator_set_inputs or indicator_toggle_visibility.

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?

An explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section names the trigger (attach technical studies, remove via entity_id) and points to chart_get_state as the source of entity_id. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools such as indicator_set_inputs, so it stops short of a 5.

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