tv_set_symbol

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is disclosed. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it states the return value includes previous and current for reverting changes, and it explicitly warns about TradingView's lack of up-front validation, directing the agent to verify the result. These details go beyond the annotations and are genuinely useful for correct invocation and error handling.

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 sentences, both carrying essential information. The first sentence states the action and effect, the second provides a critical caveat about validation. No fluff or redundant content, and the mutation is front-loaded. This is exemplary brevity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, schema fully documented, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: mutation, revert capability, and validation caveat. It explains the return shape ({previous, current}) which the schema lacks. The only minor omission is clarifying what 'symbol_resolved' is, but that is a field in the result rather than a parameter, and its meaning is inferable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., symbol format, layout selector, expect_layout). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the symbol example and mentions the return value, which is not parameter-specific. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 states a precise verb ('change'), a clear resource ('active chart symbol'), and includes a concrete example ('BYBIT:ETHUSDT.P'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tv_set_resolution by explicitly targeting symbol, not resolution. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 establishes clear usage context: it mutates the chart and returns a revertible pair. It warns that TradingView does not validate the symbol up front, guiding the agent to check symbol_resolved after the call. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, the distinguishing nature of symbol-setting versus sibling tools is implied by the focus on symbol.

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