chart_manage_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the actions (add/remove) without revealing side effects, requirements (e.g., chart must be loaded), error behavior, or impact on existing indicators. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, crisp sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately concise and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured to mention the conditional parameter usage.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (one with a JSON string, one with an enum) and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what happens after a successful add/remove, whether the operation is idempotent, or how the inputs field interrelates with the action. An agent would need to infer critical details from the schema alone.

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 100%, so all parameters are individually described, including the enum for action and the conditional requirements for entity_id and indicator. The description itself adds no extra context beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline expected for full schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('Add or remove') and a specific resource ('indicator/study on the chart'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'indicator_add', which likely performs a similar add operation, so it misses the opportunity to avoid confusion.

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 alternatives like indicator_add, indicator_remove, or indicator_toggle_visibility. The schema hints that entity_id is needed for remove and indicator is needed for add, but the description itself provides no context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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