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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the effect on organisation-wide context and existing competitor monitoring, the explicit non-effect on scheduling, concurrency ('multiple strategies may be published simultaneously'), and the rights requirement.

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 distinct information (action, trigger, downstream effect, constraint), with the core action front-loaded and no filler.

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, so the description's coverage of authorization, downstream impact, and the non-effect on monitoring makes it complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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), and the description compensates by spelling out both boolean states as publish versus return-to-draft. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it never states the parameter name explicitly.

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 precise verb+resource pair ('Publishes a strategy') and covers the reverse transition ('returns it to draft'), making it identifiable against siblings like edit_strategy or delete_strategy without opening either schema. The bidirectional scope is explicit.

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?

Signals the trigger condition ('on explicit user request') and pre-empts a likely misconception with 'Publication does not schedule or start monitoring.' It does not explicitly name a competing sibling to use instead, so it stops short of 5.

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