create_analysis_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses the read-only default, the confirmation gate, the verifications performed (Pine source, chart binding, analysis_id, current price, existing owned alerts, post-create readback), and exclusions such as no webhooks, email, SMS, broker APIs, or orders. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, verification behavior, and safety boundaries. The key safety information about confirm=true is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain what the return value looks like, though it hints at 'post-create readback.' For a 9-parameter mutation tool, the description covers core invocation and safety but leaves return format and exact failure conditions unspecified, making it adequate but not 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 44%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented required parameters. It adds meaning around confirm=true and mentions analysis_id and Pine source/chart binding verification, but it does not explicitly explain pine_id, expected_symbol, expected_timeframe, chart_index, or output behavior. The schema patterns and 'expected_' prefix provide partial semantics, so the description adds moderate value.

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 specific verb and resource: it previews or creates bounded, one-shot TradingView price alerts for Confirmation, Invalidation, and Target 1 from an audited Bushido Analysis Overlay. It also distinguishes itself from pure listing tools by emphasizing creation and verification, so an agent can tell it apart from list_alerts.

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 clearly explains the preview-versus-create behavior: 'Without confirm=true it is read-only.' This gives the agent an explicit condition for invoking mutation versus safe preview. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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