Clear all analysis overlays

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating the tool modifies state but is not considered destructive. The description adds the list of overlay types removed, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like idempotency or permanence. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds limited transparency beyond them.

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 that fully captures the action and scope. No redundant wording or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Remove' and lists the overlay types efficiently.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the types of overlays affected. It does not explicitly mention that it applies to the current chart, but the chart_* naming convention implies that context. It is complete enough, though a mention of 'current chart' could enhance clarity.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to document them. The schema covers 100% of the (absent) parameters. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline 4, and there is no additional parameter information 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: removing all analysis overlays including indicators, levels, custom series, zones, and markers. It uses specific verbs and lists the affected elements, distinguishing it from sibling tools that remove individual overlay types.

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 usage for clearing all overlays in one operation, but does not explicitly contrast with individual removal tools. While the purpose is clear, explicit guidance on when to choose this over chart_remove_* tools would improve it. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer the correct use.

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