remove_owned_study

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It explicitly reveals verification against list_pine_scripts and the hidden Pine id, fail-closed behavior on symbol/timeframe mismatch, and the confirm=true requirement before any removal. This gives an agent critical safety-relevant behavior 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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and ownership constraint are front-loaded, followed by safety mechanisms. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety context: ownership verification, fail-closed guards, and confirmation requirement. It does not describe return values or preview output details, but those are less critical than the removal safeguards and the description is strong enough for safe 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains confirm as the removal gate, pine_id as the user's own verified id, study_id as related to the study's hidden Pine id, and expected_symbol/expected_timeframe as guards that must match current chart context. chart_index is only implicitly covered by 'one on-chart instance', but overall the description adds substantial parameter meaning.

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 specific action: preview or remove one on-chart instance of the user's own saved Pine script. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like add_pine_to_chart, save_pine_script, and list_pine_scripts by emphasizing ownership verification and chart-scoped removal.

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 context for when to use this tool: to preview or remove an owned saved Pine script from a chart, with confirm=true required for actual removal. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the ownership and chart-context guardrails make the intended scenario clear.

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