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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: edits are atomic, redlines are not produced, unchanged text and comment anchors are preserved, ambiguous matches and edits touching pending application-editor changes are rejected, conflicting revisions abort without applying changes, and the response exposes orphaned_discussion_ids. The only gap is that it never says what a successful response looks like beyond that one field, though an output schema covers it.

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 deprecation and replacement routing are front-loaded, which is the right priority. A few sentences are dense and mix concerns ("Replacements apply directly, without redlines, and preserve unchanged text and comment anchors"), and the sentence about both interfaces accessing the same records is filler, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral surface: atomicity, failure modes, concurrency safety via revisions, side effects on discussion threads, and authorization. It is only short of complete on per-action semantics of the operations array.

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 33% — only strategy_id is documented in the schema, while revision and operations are not. The description compensates partially by tying revision to get_strategy and stating that conflicting revisions are rejected, and by characterizing operations as an atomic batch. It does not explain which operation types exist (insert/replace/delete/reorder/rename), the meaning of index or section_ids, or the item limits, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 concrete operation (an atomic batch of section edits on Strategy records) and explicitly distinguishes it from its replacement, update_asset, plus the related read tool get_strategy that supplies the revision. An agent can pick the correct tool 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?

It states that this interface is deprecated and that update_asset is the replacement, with the condition for continued use (existing clients during migration). It also states the access prerequisite (strategy management rights), so when-to-use versus when-to-use-the-alternative is explicit.

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