romaco_clear_drawings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (removal of drawings) and warns that it cannot be undone. However, it does not specify that other chart elements (indicators, alerts) are unaffected, which could be inferred but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences: first explains the action, second adds a critical warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, the description is adequate. It states the action and irreversibility. Could be slightly more complete by clarifying scope (only drawings, not indicators or alerts), but overall sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable.

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 'Remove all drawings from the chart' and lists specific types (trendlines, Fibonacci retracements, etc.), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from siblings like 'romaco_remove_alert' and 'romaco_clear_alerts' by specifying drawings.

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 drawings at once but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The irreversibility warning is helpful but not a usage guideline.

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