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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: validation occurs before saving, success returns the saved link and revision, and write access is required. Return details are partly redundant given the output schema, keeping this just short of a 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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it creates, where to get guidance, validation/return behavior, follow-up path, permissions/publication boundary), with the core action front-loaded and 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 create tool with an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: prerequisites, validation behavior, the pointer to the template for capture schema, and the separation of publication. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what to fetch first.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters (title, sections), so the description must compensate. It does so only indirectly by pointing to get_strategy_template for capture guidance and schema; it never explains title or the sections array/structure itself, leaving the agent to fetch another tool before it can build valid input.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Creates a populated draft strategy.' It also clarifies the object is a draft (not a published strategy) and names the related tools (get_strategy_template, edit_strategy), which separates it cleanly from siblings like edit_strategy and set_strategy_publication.

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?

Explicit routing: capture guidance/schema comes from get_strategy_template, refinement happens via edit_strategy, and 'Publication is separate' signals set_strategy_publication. It also states the prerequisite (strategy management rights, including customer moderators), giving the agent when-to-use and gating conditions.

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