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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds two pieces of context those annotations do not convey: the deletion is permanent/irreversible and it requires strategy management rights. It doesn't mention side effects on related data, but this is solid added value over the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature and the activation condition front-loaded before the permission requirement.

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 so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the call condition, permanence, and auth requirement; the only minor omission is any note on cascading side effects for a destructive operation.

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?

Only one parameter (strategy_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Permanently deletes') and resource ('a strategy'), making clear this is an irreversible destruction of a strategy rather than an edit or a task deletion as in delete_task. An agent can distinguish it from edit_strategy and delete_task without opening the 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 an explicit usage condition ('when explicitly requested by the user'), which meaningfully constrains when the agent should invoke it. It does not name alternative tools or describe when-not-to-use beyond that, so it falls short of an explicit routing statement.

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