set_live_state

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

With annotations covering the safety profile, the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the command replaces any pending one, only takes effect when piloting is enabled, is reported via pilot_enabled in the response, requires a specific licence tier, and that the current app ignores the two fields. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs and are not in the structured fields.

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 content is front-loaded and each paragraph carries distinct information (install prerequisite, legacy behavior, alternative tool, effect semantics). It is somewhat verbose in the opening install paragraph, but nothing is gratuitous.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what the response contains (pilot_enabled, notice that fields were not applied). Prerequisites, enabling conditions, and the alternative tool are all covered, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 schema documents tf and sym, making 3 the baseline. The description adds important meaning the schema cannot: the current app does not apply these two fields and the response says so, which materially affects whether an agent should pass them at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'queue a command asking the old chart terminal to show another symbol or timeframe.' It also explicitly labels itself 'Legacy' and contrasts with pilot_app, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings. The installation preamble at the top slightly buries the core purpose.

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?

Explicit routing is given: 'To drive the current app (open a document, switch screen, start a backtest) use pilot_app,' and the legacy/exhausted nature of this tool is stated. It also names prerequisites (desktop app installed, activated, Atelier or Portfolio licence) and the enabling condition (piloting enabled).

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