chart_set_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a chart type is changed, without disclosing that this modifies the active chart's state, whether it is reversible, any persistence or side effects, or what happens on failure. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the name itself.

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 three words with no wasted content and is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the behavioral disclosure burden for a mutation tool.

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 setter the tool is mostly invokable with the well-documented parameter, but the description lacks explicit scope (active chart), return/confirmation behavior, or potential failure modes. Without annotations or an output schema, an agent gets only the bare minimum.

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 100%, and the sole parameter chart_type is thoroughly documented with all valid values and the instruction to pass name or number. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Change chart type' uses a clear verb and specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chart_set_symbol and chart_set_timeframe by naming the chart type as the target. It could be slightly more specific about which chart is affected, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no information about the target context (e.g., active chart). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling naming pattern.

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