tv_pine_save

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. Description adds context that it simulates clicking the Save button on screen and persisting the script, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with two sentences (including a warning label) that front-load the purpose. 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?

Minimally covers the core action but omits details like failure modes, requirement for compilation success before saving, or whether it overwrites existing script. Given the tool is destructive and has many siblings, more context would be helpful.

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 optional parameter 'scriptName' is described as 'Optional; informational only.' The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the verb (save) and resource (Pine editor script). Description explicitly mentions persisting the script to the user's TradingView account, distinguishing it from related tools like tv_pine_create or tv_pine_patch.

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?

Implies saving is for persisting changes but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., tv_pine_compile_errors). No mention of prerequisites like having a valid script or having opened the Pine editor.

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