indicator_set_inputs

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 trait: 'STATE_MUTATING (Alters indicator configuration on chart)' plus the/entity-ID requirement. It stops short of covering failure behavior for invalid input IDs or whether overrides persist/are reversible.

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?

Four labeled, front-loaded fragments (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) with no filler. The mutation warning is placed where an agent will see it before acting.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, side effect, and preconditions adequately. It omits error/validation behavior when input IDs or the JSON map are invalid, which is the main remaining gap.

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 both parameters are documented with examples inside the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of example fields (length, source, period) only loosely restates the schema's 'e.g.' example rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 and resource ('Programmatically override input values of an indicator entity') and enumerates concrete examples (length, source, period, multiplier). The phrase 'without deleting and re-adding it' implicitly separates it from chart_manage_indicator, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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' clause gives a clear trigger: fine-tuning an attached study's parameters in place rather than removing and re-adding it. It includes a LIMITATIONS precondition (needs study entity ID and valid JSON map) but does not name an alternative tool for the delete/re-add path.

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