pine_save

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the burden and discloses the key traits: STATE_MUTATING, writes changes to the user account, and requires the Pine Editor to be active. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens on an unsaved or invalid script) but covers the essential mutation and precondition facts.

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 short, front-loaded segments (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) with zero filler. The label-prefixed structure makes it scannable at a glance.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, its mutation effect, and its precondition. The main remaining gap is the absence of sibling routing (what to call before/after) and error behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description is not obligated to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related guidance is needed.

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 ('Save the current Pine Script to user library'), plus the keyboard-shortcut mechanism, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like pine_set_source or pine_compile, which would have earned a 5.

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 line gives concrete context: persisting edits to a script already saved in TradingView cloud storage. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use pine_set_source first, or pine_smart_compile to verify) or stating when not to use it.

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