pine_can_write

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance that only a literal boolean is interpreted as can_write, but it does not describe the broader return shape or what happens with non-boolean results.

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 concise sentence with no wasted language. The core operation is front-loaded, and the interpretation rule is clearly attached.

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 simple read-only permission inspection, the description covers the essential behavior and the boolean interpretation rule. Some gaps remain around the return structure and why target_id/expected_layout_id are present, but the schema and annotations carry most of that burden.

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 67%, with target_id and expected_layout_id documented in the schema. The description identifies the script being inspected but does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema for script_id, so it provides only moderate extra value.

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 ("Inspect") and resource ("TradingView’s native write-permission result for one saved script"), and clarifies how can_write is interpreted. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling Pine inspection tools, but the permission-check focus is clear.

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 says what is inspected but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as other Pine inspection or validation tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context for calling it.

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