tv_pine_quick_fix

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical context: it overwrites editor contents, does not auto-save, and returns the patched source only if a static rule applied. It also flags DESTRUCTIVE in caps, reinforcing the safety warning. This is excellent disclosure of side effects and conditional return behavior.

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 four short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then addresses side effects and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, overwrite behavior, no saving, and conditional return value. It does not explicitly state what happens when no static rule applies (e.g., returns unchanged source or null), which is a minor gap, but the overall context is strong.

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%: the single 'source' parameter is fully documented with a clear description. The tool description does not add new parameter details beyond saying 'current editor source,' which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 applies deterministic, rule-based Pine Script fixes to the current editor source without calling an LLM. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from LLM-based alternatives and other editor tools, making the purpose 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 implies when to use this tool: for quick, rule-based fixes without LLM involvement, and when you do not want to save. It explicitly notes the destructive overwrite behavior, which warns against use when saving is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like tv_pine_autofix or tv_pine_patch, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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