chart_set_timeframe

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it verifies the readback after setting and refuses to operate during replay. It could say more about failure handling or expected response, but the added traits are valuable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and two key behavioral constraints efficiently.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with fully documented schema fields and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies the critical extra context: replay refusal and readback verification. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly clarify the distinction from pane_set_timeframe.

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 all three required parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Set timeframe') and adds a behavioral verb ('verify readback'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this chart-level operation from the sibling tool pane_set_timeframe, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 gives one useful context clue ('refuses during replay'), which implies when the tool will not work. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pane_set_timeframe or chart_set_symbol, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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