Add chart price zone

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

The description says 'Add or replace,' which implies overwriting or replacing an existing zone, but annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the annotation and no additional behavioral details are disclosed beyond what the annotations already provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, including the resource type and the intended use cases.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient. It omits replacement mechanics, required-field rationale, time/price format, and relationship to sibling zone tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at time/price dimensions and 'add or replace,' but does not explain startTime, endTime, lower, upper, label, color, or id semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add or replace') and resource ('shaded time/price zone') with clear use cases (demand, supply, expected ranges, invalidation areas). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chart_add_level or chart_add_marker.

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('for demand, supply, expected ranges, or invalidation areas') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, so differentiation is only implied by the word 'zone'.

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