create_strategy_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about automatic symbol resolution and reading default inputs, which explains why the alert works. However, it omits details about side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, so it is informative but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences that front-load the main purpose and include key behavioral details without any fluff. Every sentence contributes value, and it maintains a clear structure.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of the tool's behavior and relies on the rich schema for parameter details. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., an alert ID or confirmation), which is important for a creation tool especially since there is no output schema. This gap prevents a higher score.

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?

The schema already covers all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by highlighting the automatic symbol resolution (relating to 'symbol'), reading default inputs (relating to 'inputs'), and the optional webhook URL (relating to 'web_hook'), which goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new TradingView alert') and the resource ('from one of your saved Pine strategies'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_alerts and delete_alerts by focusing on creation, and the extra details about resolving symbols and reading default inputs clarify the specific scope.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to create an alert from a saved strategy) and references list_saved_strategies in the schema, which is a helpful alternative for finding strategy names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other sibling tools like list_alerts for viewing existing alerts.

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