tv_drawing_add_fib_retracement

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'Experimental' and 'Best-effort', which are honest behavioral traits about reliability, though it does not elaborate on specific destructive effects.

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 only two short sentences and is front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value; there is no fluff.

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 the basic purpose and a caution about reliability, but given the annotations and schema, it is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the coordinate system or any side effects beyond the annotations, and for an experimental tool more context might be expected.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (x1Pct, x2Pct, y1Pct, y2Pct). The description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'add a Fibonacci retracement drawing on the chart pane.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling drawing tools like trendline or horizontal line.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, and the 'experimental' label is not framed as a usage condition.

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