chartimg_v2_layout_chart_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Layout must be shared unless session cookies are provided') and the auto-clamping behavior for width/height, while the POST endpoint and 'to storage' make the write nature clear. It does not describe the response or storage location in detail, but the key invocation behaviors are covered.

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 two tight sentences: first the purpose and endpoint, then the most important constraints. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant elaboration or filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, the required layoutId via the schema, optional overrides, the sharing/cookie prerequisite, and clamping behavior. It does not describe the return value or storage location in detail, but an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter, including the body overrides and the session cookie fields. The description adds the condition that session cookies can substitute for sharing and reiterates clamping, but does not substantially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('render'), a specific resource ('shared TradingView layout'), and the storage target, reinforced by the explicit POST endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like chartimg_v2_layout_chart_image, which is about returning an image rather than storing.

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?

It implies usage for shared TradingView layouts and gives a key precondition: 'Layout must be shared unless session cookies are provided.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over sibling storage/image tools, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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