tv_indicator_add

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

The description states 'DESTRUCTIVE: modifies the chart', which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. Since annotations already cover destructiveness, the description adds minimal new behavioral context beyond reinforcement.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and immediately addresses destructive nature. No unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter, and behavioral impact.

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 input schema has one parameter 'name' with a description. Schema coverage is 100%, and the tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'indicator or strategy', and specifies the method 'by name' with examples. It differentiates from sibling tools like tv_indicator_remove or tv_indicator_hide.

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 usage context (adding indicators) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives. The sibling tool names provide enough context for distinction.

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