pane_set_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation without detailing side effects, whether other panes are affected, what happens on invalid indices, or what the return value is. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the literal action.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It effectively front-loads the action and target, making it quick to parse.

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 setter with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context about how the pane index should be obtained or validated, and does not mention any return value or confirmation, leaving minor but relevant gaps.

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%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema: index is 'Pane index (0-based)' and symbol is 'Symbol to set (e.g., NQ1!, ES1!, AAPL)'. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 action ('Set the symbol') and the target resource ('a specific pane by index'), making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool chart_set_symbol, which likely performs a similar symbol-setting operation at the chart level, so an agent could be unsure which to choose.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use pane_set_symbol versus chart_set_symbol, nor does it explain how to determine the appropriate pane index or any prerequisites such as listing panes first.

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