chart_set_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It explicitly discloses STATE_MUTATING behavior, ticker alteration, state generation increment, generational cache invalidation, and that the tool waits for market data feed confirmation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses clear labeled sections for WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to call it, what side effects occur, and what format the symbol must satisfy.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the TradingView ticker format requirement and giving examples beyond the schema's own example list, though it largely mirrors the schema's parameter description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Change the active chart symbol and wait for market data feed confirmation.' It clearly scopes the action to the active chart symbol, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chart_set_timeframe, chart_set_type, and pane_set_symbol.

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 WHEN TO USE section gives clear context: 'Call to navigate the chart to a new financial instrument before performing analysis or running strategies.' However, it does not name alternatives such as symbol_search or pane_set_symbol, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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