set_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the specific fields being set (length, units, ignore-last, confidence, seasonality) and warns to verify the render in Desktop, implying a rendering caveat. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting an existing forecast or reversibility, though it does state the prerequisite of a line chart.

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 compact and front-loaded, conveying the core action, the parameter list, the alternative comparison, and a verification tip in just two sentences. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 setter with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameter meanings, the primary alternative, and a verification step. It could be more complete by mentioning error conditions or whether it overwrites existing forecasts, but it is nearly sufficient for the intended use.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds explicit allowed values for units ('Point|Day|Month|Year') and an example for confidenceInterval ('0.95'), enhancing the schema's descriptions. It also clarifies the meaning of ignore-last indirectly through the parenthetical list, but the schema already covers that.

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 clearly states the action ('Set a FULL forecast'), the target ('a line chart'), and the composition of the forecast object (length/units/ignore-last/confidence/seasonality). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_analytics_line, which only sets the band, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly contrasts with add_analytics_line, noting that set_forecast is more complete and that the alternative only sets the band. This gives direct guidance on when to use this tool over that sibling. It also adds a practical instruction to verify the render in Desktop.

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