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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the real side effect of visibility changes — making a strategy private removes it and every saved result from Browse and the profile, and public restores them — plus the Pro plan gate. It does not describe idempotency or response behavior, so it falls short of 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then side effects, then the redirect to the correct tool for rule changes. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond a title, the description covers the mutation's effects, plan gating, and where to go for rule edits. It does not state that name and visibility are independently optional, which is the only notable gap.

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 only 33% (only 'id' is documented), so the description must carry the load for 'name' and 'visibility'. It does map them to meaning — rename maps to name, public/private maps to visibility with concrete consequences — and 'id' is anchored to list_strategies in the schema, though no constraints like maxLength 120 are echoed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (rename a strategy / change its visibility) and implicitly scopes out the adjacent operation of changing rules. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like delete_strategy, fork_strategy, promote_strategy, or run_backtest without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear positive use case (rename, change visibility) and, crucially, an explicit alternative for the thing an agent might otherwise attempt here: 'To change its rules, run a backtest with the new spec and save.strategyId.' It lacks only a full when-not/alternative matrix, so 4 rather than 5.

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