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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds important procedural context beyond annotations: a preview is required, owner approval is required, the same requestId must be reused, and success should only be claimed when status is active.

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 short and front-loads the core operation and confirmation workflow. The trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' reference is cryptic and does not earn much space, but overall there is little waste.

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?

It covers the critical approval and idempotency workflow for a destructive update, which is valuable. It is still incomplete for a 10-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema: it does not explain how to verify active status, which likely involves the operation-status sibling.

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?

The description adds meaning for confirm and requestId, tying them to preview approval and idempotent recovery. However, it does not cover the nested payload fields, strategyId in parameters, or the expected* preview guards, leaving significant gaps given 10 parameters and only 60% schema description coverage.

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: update portfolio bid strategy. It is clearly distinct from create_bid_strategy and list_bid_strategies by name, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate among those siblings.

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?

Gives a clear operational sequence: preview spending/deletion changes, then obtain owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId. It does not explain when to choose this tool versus create_bid_strategy or list_bid_strategies, but the mutation workflow context is clear.

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