annotate_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the operation has no calculation impact and is saved persistently, but it does not mention whether annotations are appended or replaced, any permission requirements, or idempotency behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key effects. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 covers the core purpose and two important behavioral traits, but with six parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps around overwrite semantics, idempotency, and optional parameter roles. Overall, it is minimal but not 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the target (symbol+timeframe) and gives an example shape for the annotations parameter, but it does not explain the optional parameters created_by, request_id, or idempotency_key.

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 action: adding agent annotations to a symbol+timeframe, with an example shape. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_chart_annotations and clear_annotations, which retrieve or remove annotations.

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 use case is implied: annotate a chart for a given symbol/timeframe. It adds context that this has no effect on calculations and is persistent, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_chart_annotations or clear_annotations, nor does it mention exclusions.

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