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

Beyond the supplied annotations, it discloses validation before saving, required strategy-management rights, draft rather than published state, and the saved link and revision returned on success. The shared-record behavior with create_asset adds further useful interoperability context.

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 dense but efficiently ordered, leading with deprecation and its replacement before covering purpose, workflow, behavior, and permissions. Each sentence supplies distinct, actionable information without repetition.

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 two-parameter create operation with an output schema and safety annotations, it covers tool selection, lifecycle, validation, authorization, and publication boundaries well. Its main completeness gap is relying on a separate template tool for parameter and capture semantics.

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?

Neither title nor sections is directly explained despite 0% schema description coverage. The pointer to get_strategy_template for capture guidance and schema partially compensates, but the description itself adds little about expected section content or how the parameters should be populated.

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 explicitly states that it "Creates a populated draft strategy" and distinguishes this deprecated interface from create_asset, while noting that both access the same Strategy records. This provides a specific action, resource, resulting state, and clear sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit migration-based selection guidance: the interface is retained for existing clients, while create_asset is the replacement. It also directs agents to get_strategy_template for capture guidance, edit_strategy for refinement, and clarifies that publication is a separate operation.

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