pane_set_timeframe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat — that other panes may experience collateral changes and should be checked — but says nothing about what happens on failure, linked panes, or the effect of allow_linked_changes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scoping constraint first and the verification advice second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the number of undocumented parameters, but the structure itself is clean.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with 4 required params, no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained: the timeframe format, timeout behavior, and the linked-pane flag are all invisible to the agent. The collateral-change warning is a good start but not sufficient.

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 only 33%: target_id and expected_layout_id are documented in the schema, while index, timeframe, timeout_ms and allow_linked_changes have no explanation anywhere. The description only gestures at 'target', leaving the timeframe vocabulary (e.g. '1', '5', 'D') and the meaning of allow_linked_changes entirely undisclosed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a timeframe on exactly one pane'), and the 'exactly one pane' scoping implicitly separates it from chart-wide siblings like chart_set_timeframe and from pane_set_symbol. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 'exactly one pane' constraint and the instruction to verify the target before acting imply the usage context, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given (e.g. use chart_set_timeframe for the whole chart, pane_set_layout for structure changes).

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