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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, destructive tool, and the description adds context the annotations cannot: the user-confirmation requirement, that it is free, and that external calls run directly under the apikey identity. It does not warn that delete is irreversible or what happens to dependent positions/backtests.

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?

Front-loaded and compact, but the write-operation warning is duplicated ('写操作，需用户确认' and '写操作，外部调用将以 apikey 身份直接执行'), and the trailing '(cost: free)' tag adds clutter rather than substance.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, it covers action values, required fields, cost, and identity behavior. The main omission is any statement about the consequences of delete or whether updates overwrite versus merge strategy data.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema only describes action as '要执行的操作' with no enum. The description supplies the actual allowed values (create / update / delete), the required nested field data.name, and the dex/defi value domain for data.strategy_category — meaning genuinely absent from the schema.

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 names a specific resource (管理自己的策略) and enumerates the three operations (create / update / delete), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as platform_my_strategies or platform_publish_strategy, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Clear per-action preconditions: update/delete require strategyId, create/update take data, and data.name is mandatory. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool versus publishing or listing strategies.

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