apply_analysis_overlay

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: the fail-closed guardrail, the read-only preview behavior without confirm=true, the precise mutation boundary ('changes only that overlay's inputs'), the post-write verification readback, and the explicit exclusion 'It never places orders or alerts.' This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a state-changing tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety guardrail, mode semantics (split into two tight clauses), and side-effect exclusion. Purpose is front-loaded, and the structure flows logically from what the tool does to how it behaves safely. Zero redundancy.

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 high complexity (19 params, 12 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavioral contract thoroughly: modes, guardrails, mutation scope, verification, and side-effects. It gives partial return information ('returns a preview', 'reads them and its drawing totals back for verification'). What remains absent is error-response detail and explicit analysis-payload semantics, but the description is sufficient for safe selection and invocation.

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 32%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully for the most behaviorally critical parameter (confirm, going beyond the schema by describing the readback/verification contract) and for expected_symbol/expected_timeframe by placing them in the fail-closed matching logic. However, 13 of 19 parameters (bias, entry_low, entry_high, invalidation, stop, targets, confidence, etc.) receive no description-level meaning beyond their names, leaving the analysis payload semantics partially to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Preview or apply a structured market analysis to an existing Bushido Analysis Overlay study.' It clearly distinguishes the two operating modes and the specific target (an existing overlay), which separates it from sibling tools like ensure_analysis_overlay (creation) and get_analysis_overlay_status (read-only status).

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 provides clear invocation context: it applies to an existing overlay, requires symbol/timeframe/contract matching (otherwise fails closed), and explains the preview-vs-commit decision via the confirm flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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