session_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares EXTERNAL_SIDE_EFFECT, specifies a local disk write, names the exact file naming scheme, and states limitations. It omits whether a save overwrites an existing same-date file, which is the main unresolved behavior.

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?

Labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) front-load the essential action and destination. Efficient overall, though 'LIMITATIONS: None' is filler that adds no information.

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 2-parameter write with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger condition, destination, and side effects. Gaps are minor: overwrite semantics and any confirmation of success are not described.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'date' and 'brief' including defaults and provenance. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (save) and resource (session brief/analysis summary) and gives the concrete destination path (~/.tradingview-mcp/sessions/YYYY-MM-DD.json). This clearly separates it from the sibling session_get, which reads rather than writes.

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 clause ties invocation to completing a morning briefing or daily market analysis, which maps to the sibling morning_brief and archiving intent. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. re-saving vs first save).

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