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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context those annotations cannot carry: permanence, the deprecation/migration status, and a required permission ('strategy management rights'). It stops short of describing downstream effects (e.g., what happens to dependent assets), which keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the deprecation notice is front-loaded where an agent will see it first. 'Both interfaces access the same Strategy records' is slightly redundant with the replacement pointer but does usefully signal equivalence.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented, so the description only needs routing and risk context — which it supplies. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% with a single documented 'strategy_id' parameter (pattern, length bounds), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or whether IDs are shared with delete_asset. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently deletes a strategy') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling that replaces it ('the replacement is delete_asset'). An agent can distinguish it from delete_asset and create_strategy without opening a schema.

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 explicit routing guidance: prefer delete_asset, use this only for existing clients during migration and only when 'explicitly requested by the user'. The rights prerequisite is also named, so an agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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