chart_set_visible_range

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by saying the tool verifies the range "within the stated tolerance," but it does not explain failure handling or what verification entails beyond the schema's expected_layout_id guard.

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 core action and verification behavior immediately.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with required target and layout guard fields, the description covers the essential action and verification. However, it omits usage context and does not explain what the verification behavior means operationally, leaving some reliance on the schema and annotations.

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 80%, so the schema already documents from, to, target_id, and expected_layout_id. The description reinforces Unix-second semantics and refers to the tolerance parameter, but it does not add detail for the optional tolerance_seconds or clarify the guard parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Set visible Unix-second time range," and adds a verification behavior. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling navigation tools such as chart_get_visible_range or chart_scroll_to_date.

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?

It states the action but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is the write counterpart to chart_get_visible_range and when to choose it over chart_scroll_to_date or chart_zoom.

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