indicator_set_inputs

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds useful pre-write validation and post-write verification behavior, but it does not explain failure modes, atomicity, or permission requirements beyond what the schema annotations imply.

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 that conveys both validation and setting behavior with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the semicolon split could be slightly clearer.

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 a nested inputs object, four required parameters, open-world behavior, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to explain input value expectations, partial update behavior, or return/failure outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 75%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description vaguely references 'input ID' and 'exact values,' but it does not add meaningful semantics for the nested inputs object or the role of target_id and expected_layout_id 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 uses the specific verbs 'validate' and 'set' and mentions 'input ID' and 'exact values,' implying indicator input updates. However, it never explicitly says it operates on indicator inputs and does not distinguish itself from siblings like indicator_get_inputs or strategy_set_inputs.

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 a procedural rule ('Validate every input ID before changing anything') but does not state when this tool should be used instead of alternatives such as indicator_get_inputs or strategy_set_inputs. There is no explicit context or exclusion guidance.

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