indicator_add

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some behavioral context by saying the tool awaits a promise and verifies a newly registered entity ID, implying an asynchronous creation-and-validation flow. However, it does not say what gets created, what could fail, or how target_id/expected_layout_id affect the write.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious padding, which is structurally efficient. But terms like "promise" and "registered entity ID" are opaque, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than earning its place through useful detail.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, a nested inputs object, an open-world annotation, and no output schema, so the description carries significant explanatory burden. It does not clarify what a study is, what the returned entity ID represents, or what side effects occur on the chart, leaving an agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 60%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain the nested inputs object, force_overlay, or how expected_layout_id guards the operation, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 phrase "Create a study" gives a verb and a resource, but "study" is ambiguous and the description never states that this adds an indicator/study to a chart. The trailing "await its promise, and verify a new registered entity ID" describes implementation mechanics rather than the tool's purpose, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like indicator_set_inputs or indicator_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus indicator_list, indicator_set_inputs, indicator_remove, or layout tools. It also omits prerequisites such as needing an active target tab, which the schema hints at but the description never reinforces.

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