tv_set_resolution

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'MUTATES' and mentioning the return value includes { previous, current } for revertibility. This provides extra context about the mutation and the ability to undo it, going beyond the raw annotations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. It front-loads the action ('MUTATES') and delivers the target resource and valid values immediately. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

The description explains the operation and return value, and the schema documents all parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to use versus alternatives) and does not address potential error conditions or prerequisites. The revert information is helpful, but the missing usage context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description offers example resolution values, but these are already present in the schema. It does not add new constraints or elaboration on parameter meaning beyond what the schema documents.

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 operation: 'change the active chart timeframe/resolution' and provides concrete example values ('1', '5', '60', '1D', '1W'). It identifies the resource (chart timeframe) and the action (change). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling setter tools like tv_set_symbol, but the verb and resource are specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only describes what it does, without mentioning any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as tv_set_symbol. An agent receives no context for selecting this tool over other modification tools.

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