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 partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: org-wide visibility for members and agents, the fact that existing competitor monitoring picks it up, that publication is not scheduling, that multiple strategies can be live at once, and that strategy management rights are required. It stops short of saying what is lost or who loses access when a strategy is reverted to draft, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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, each carrying a distinct fact: the action, the effect, the negative scope (no monitoring start), the concurrency rule, and the permission requirement. Nothing is repeated and the primary action is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers permissions, visibility consequences, and the monitoring side-effect boundary. The remaining gap is the unwind path – what reverting to draft does to already-distributed context or downstream agent knowledge – which is relevant for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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 coverage is 50% – strategy_id is documented, the boolean publish is not. The description compensates by making the boolean's two states explicit (publish vs. return to draft), so an agent can map publish=true/false without guessing, though it never uses the parameter name directly.

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 pair (publish / return to draft) on a specific resource (strategy), and the title reinforces the status-change framing. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_strategy, edit_strategy, and delete_strategy, which mutate content or existence rather than publication state.

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?

"On explicit user request" gives a clear usage condition, and the note that publication does not schedule or start monitoring pre-empts a likely misuse (expecting it to kick off competitor monitoring). It does not name an alternative tool for content changes, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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