set_timeframe

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 add meaningful disclosure: 'the target pane is read back and failures are rolled back,' revealing verification and transactional-rollback behavior. This partially compensates for the missing annotation layer. However, it omits other behavioral traits an agent would want, such as persistence effects, what a 'failure' condition looks like, and any prerequisites.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then examples, then the multi-chart qualifier. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant boilerplate.

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 2-parameter setter, the description covers the action, valid values, multi-chart behavior, and verification semantics. But with no output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps: the return/confirmation format after the read-back is unspecified, error behavior beyond rollback is vague, and there is no statement about whether a chart/pane must already exist.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by giving concrete resolution examples ('1', '5', '15', '60', '240' (minutes), '1D', '1W', '1M'), which clarifies the units and format that a bare 'Timeframe/resolution string' does not. The chart_index explanation mostly mirrors the schema, but the resolution semantics push this above baseline.

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+resource: 'Change one TradingView chart's timeframe.' It also clarifies scope with 'one' (single-pane) and provides concrete valid values. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not (e.g., set_symbol), so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the action and target are unmistakable.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for changing a chart's timeframe, and the chart_index explanation gives multi-chart layout guidance. However, there is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as set_symbol, and no prerequisite stated (e.g., a chart must be open).

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