tv_pine_add_to_chart

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying the destructive effect: 'changes the active chart.' Also explains the mechanism (click action). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one main sentence plus a one-word warning. Front-loaded with the action and critical destructive note. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary content.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description omits essential context about the 'scriptName' parameter and any usage constraints. No output schema is provided, but a simple action could benefit from clarifying whether the script must be open or selected. Agent may not know how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'scriptName' is completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. Agent has no information on how to use this parameter (e.g., its purpose, expected values, or whether it is needed).

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Click 'Add to chart' on the current Pine script.' It specifies a verb ('Add to chart') and resource ('current Pine script'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tv_pine_create or tv_pine_save by describing a specific UI interaction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a Pine script selected) or scenarios where siblings like tv_pine_save or tv_pine_create would be more appropriate. Agent must infer usage context.

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