tv_study_template

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that `apply` MUTATES THE CHART and REPLACES EVERY STUDY, that `delete` requires `confirm=true`, and that built-in templates refuse deletion. It also adds verified behavior such as list appearing in ~2 s, apply restoring studies, and delete taking effect in ~1 s.

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 long but dense and well-structured, using action labels as anchors. Each sentence contributes unique operational detail, including endpoint information, mutation warnings, and latency expectations, with the overall tool purpose front-loaded.

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 multi-action tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains return expectations for apply (studies before/after), snapshot (template object), list (custom before built-in), and delete (gone). The live round-trip verification further reduces agent uncertainty about real behavior.

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 baseline is 3case. The description adds meaningful action-parameter mapping: `replace=true` overwrites, `confirm=true` is mandatory for delete, `file` can be written by snapshot or read by apply, and `template` supports inline JSON. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as managing TradingView indicator/study templates, with each action (`list`, `snapshot`, `save`, `apply`, `delete`) explicitly enumerated. It differentiates the tool from sibling study-related tools by focusing on saved templates and mutating the chart's study set rather than individual study values.

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?

Per-action usage guidance is explicit: snapshot is recommended before apply for undoability, delete requires confirm and refuses built-ins, replace overwrites existing templates. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like tv_list_studies or tv_get_study_values, but the action-based routing and clear read-only vs. destructive labeling give strong context.

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